Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

GLASSHOUSE INDUSTRY (HEATING COSTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important matter relating to the glasshouse industry in the United Kingdom. I had a telephone message this morning from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who regrets that he cannot be present, and I know that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) would also wish to be associated with the debate. It is an all-party matter. Those hon. Members represent constituencies that are deeply involved with the glasshouse industry in West Sussex and the Lea valley.
There are many modern glasshouses in the Arreton valley, in my constituency. Growers have been attracted there, largely from the Lea valley. There was always a horticulture industry in the Arreton valley, but it has developed substantially over the past 20 years with the assistance of grants from the Ministry of Agriculture. Growers are particularly attracted to that part of the country because of the soil structure and the light intensity.
I hope that I can claim to speak on behalf of all horticulturists, whether in West Sussex, the Lea valley or even Northern Ireland, who are finding their livelihoods threatened by the huge increases that have taken place in the price of energy, particularly oil, over the past 18 months. About 90 per cent, of growers heat their glasshouses with oil, and I was told last night that oil prices have risen by 160 per cent. in the past 16 months. I also heard on the radio this morning that the British National Oil Corporation

is about to increase its prices yet again. The future outlook for the glasshouse industry is filled with gloom.
The industry is also suffering to a substantial extent from the effect of subsidised imports from the EEC, largely from Holland and lately from France, and outside the Community from countries such as Columbia and Israel. Until Thursday last week I was anticipating some action by the Minister of Agriculture to assist our growers, if only temporarily. Such assistance was given three or four years ago. It helped then, and I hoped that something similar would be done by this Administration.
From replies that I had received from the Minister I had been led to believe that help was on the, way. On 24 April I asked whether the Minister was aware of the profitability problems in agriculture. In his statement that day he had not dealt with the £12½million horticulture subsidy that Germany has just introduced to assist its glasshouse growers in terms of energy costs because they had been suffering from dumping from Holland. It was rumoured at the time that the French intended to take similar action, and they have now done so.
I asked what the Government would do to protect our producers. The Minister's answer was that at the previous Council of Ministers' meeting it had been agreed by a number of members, including the United Kingdom, that there was a need for the Community to adopt a common approach to the glasshouse industry and that the Commission had promised to produce a paper on the subject.
The Minister said that he had spoken to the Commissioner at the previous meeting and had been informed that a paper had been prepared, and that it had been promised that it would be brought forward at the next Council meeting. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that the only sensible way to tackle the problem was to have a common standard for the Community as a whole.
I was bitterly disappointed, therefore, when I put the question again on 15 May, when I asked the Minister
 What progress has been made in establishing a common European Economic Community policy for subsidising fuel supplies to glasshouse growers.


The Parliamentary Secretary told me in reply:
 I am not aware of plans for a Community policy for subsidising fuel supplies to glasshouse growers."—[Official Report, 15 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 1734.]
It appears that the door has been shut on any direct financial assistance in the United Kingdom. In the meantime, both the French and the Germans have introduced fuel subsidy schemes. I know that the intent is to enable their growers to change their heating systems. Nevertheless, the money is being made available. In France it is about 45 million francs.
All the complaints have been about the fact that the Dutch have had the benefit of cheap gas. I believe that 95 per cent. of the growers in Holland heat their glasshouses with gas. It is true that the Dutch have started to increase their gas prices, but their prices are still extremely favourable to their producers—well below the costs that our growers are being asked to bear, costs that have just taken yet another upward lurch.
The nub of the matter is that we are the country with the oil. I heard the Prime Minister say not long ago that over half the oil going into Europe now comes from the North Sea. Surely occasionally a little charity could begin at home, or is that asking too much of the present Government?
I suspect that the Parliamentary Secretary will claim that the Dutch have increased their prices by 51 per cent. The increase is to be phased in at six-monthly intervals over a two-year period. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the National Farmers Union, though I do not practice agriculture any more. Calculations provided to me by the NFU clearly demonstrate that the Dutch increases will not close the gap. I understand that the Dutch gas price will be increased by 9 cents a cubic metre over two years, having gone up by 3 cents on 1 April—an increase of 17¼ per cent. It will go up by another 1½ cents on 30 September, 3 cents on 1 April 1981 and 1½ cents at the end of September 1981.
The Dutch growers know exactly where they are. They know when the increases are coming. They are not having extra increases suddenly forced upon them because

Mr. Gaddafi in Libya decides to put up his price, and we follow suit.
The equivalent price per gallon of oil after the increase just introduced in Holland is 24·15p. On 30 September, after the next increase, it will be 25·89p; 31 March 1981, 29·38p; and at the end of September 1981, 31·12p. Therefore, even when all those increases have been made the Dutch grower will be paying the equivalent of only 31·12p a gallon.
Before the recent increase the Dutch gas price was 18p below English heavy oil prices. If oil prices in the United Kingdom rise by an average of only 12½ per cent. a year over the next two years, which is possibly being a little optimistic, the gap between the Dutch and United Kingdom energy costs will not narrow.
This information was given to the NFU's glasshouse produce and flowers committee on 9 April, which passed the following resolution:
 The average UK tomato grower made a loss in 1979 and will make a greater loss in 1980, due to increased energy costs.
I have seen some of the returns of my growers, and I know that it is a fact.
 The average Dutch grower did not make a loss in 1979, and is unlikely to do so in 1980.
Unless Dutch energy costs are brought into line with energy costs in the EEC by November 1980—the start of the 1981 growing season—the UK glasshouse tomato industry will cease to exist, apart from the few very efficient producers who have the financial resources available to support them until Dutch energy costs are equalised with the rest of the EEC.
One can imagine the traumatic problems that growers are experiencing, not only faced with huge energy costs but having bank managers breathing down their necks, and bearing high interest rates and ever—increasing labour costs.
It appears almost certain that the existing gap between oil prices to growers in this country and gas prices to Dutch growers will remain. This is borne out by the further recent price increases and the high exchange value of the pound, which has just risen again.
Therefore, it is not unfair to look at the position as it was two months ago, before the Dutch price increase, when several hon. Members received a detailed exposition of the current position from Mr. Ian Cummings, chairman of the NFU glasshouse produce and flowers


committee. The House should be reminded of some of the sober facts revealed in that letter. He said:
 The recently published Annual Review of Agriculture 1980 estimates that although total tomato production rose from 133,200 tonnes in 1978 to 134,000 tonnes in 1979, value declined from £52·7 million to £49·7 million "—
increased production, but lower returns.
The review forecast that imports from the other eight EEC Member States would increase from 45,000 tonnes to 57,000 tonnes, much of this increase being attributable to the Dutch, who sent 39,142 tonnes in 1979 as against 29,293 tonnes in 1978. The average UK tomato grower made a loss in 1979 and will make a loss in 1980 due to increased energy costs in excess of 80%. Fuel accounts for 34% of direct production costs.
The union made representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Energy in February, and more recently, pointing out that
UK growers were facing intense competition from Holland since the Dutch glasshouse industry obtains its energy supplies (primarily gas) at much lower prices than UK energy costs. As at 1st March 1980 the Dutch tomato grower had an advantage in production costs, assuming a 100 tonne per acre crop, of £70–£75 per tonne over the heavy oil user, £90.00 per tonne over the UK medium oil user and £150.00 per tonne over the UK gas oil user. These differences, which are in excess of £10,000 per acre, are greater than in the autumn because of the minimal increase in oil prices during the winter months. UK growers' fuel costs are in excess of £16,000 per acre.
The differences described in that letter are enormous. I have seen some of the returns from my own growers. They are frightening. The letter continues:
You will know that in the UK some 90 per cent. of the fuel used for glasshouse heating is oil. Oil prices have risen dramatically during the past fifteen months, primarily as a result of the OPEC oil price increases, though the strength of sterling has also had the effect of holding those prices up. By contrast 95 per cent. of the Dutch growers use natural gas and the Dutch national gas concerns have been maintaining gas prices at much lower prices than the equivalent oil prices … The intense competition faced by UK growers from Holland was fully ventilated at the recent ' British Growers' Look Ahead' Conference and Exhibition. It was then reported that the German Government had agreed to provide the sum of approximately 50 million DM (about £12½ million) as assistance to glasshouse producers in the purchase of heating oil.
That assistance has now been confirmed, as has the French Government's assistance of 45 million francs.

The letter continues:
 At the last two meetings of the Council of Agricultural Ministers the Danish Minister of Agriculture has drawn the attention of the Commission to the grave concern felt in Denmark at the intense Dutch competition. He has urged that steps be taken to eliminate the energy cost differential and in this attack on the Dutch he has been joined by Belgian, German and British representatives. The Commission pointed out that a report on energy usage in horticulture in EEC Member States has been prepared and that it was intended to be available for the next meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers on 26–28 March.
Apparently, that report still is not available. No reference has been made to it, apart from the Minister's comment on 24 April. What has happened to it? What action is being taken upon it?
Mr. Cummings went on:
 British growers see a marked contrast between the approach of the Dutch and German Governments in encouraging their glasshouse sectors and that of the British Government, which has been pursuing the policy of actively encouraging increases in both gas and oil prices.
We know that gas prices are going up. It is reported this morning that they will increase by about 75 per cent. over the next two years.
 Thus the British Government has deliberately decided to increase North Sea oil prices in line with OPEC oil prices. The recent instructions to the Gas Boards to raise their prices during 1980 by more than the expected level of inflation is another case in point.
That causes a dilemma for growers. If they switch from one to the other, they will still be caught by an enormous increase.
 It appears to British growers that the UK Government's policy is one of maximising short term profits to be gained from sales of North Sea oil and gas. The inevitable consequence of such unequal treatment of British and Dutch growers is that an increasing proportion of UK glasshouse growers will be forced out of business. It is inevitable that eventually Dutch energy prices will rise but such a rise will almost certainly not take place quickly enough to prevent the Dutch industry from driving a significant proportion of British producers out of business.
That is my belief. It is the belief of most growers that they will go to the wall if they do not receive help. Our markets would be thrown wide open to competition from the Continent. That would be a disaster when growers have spent so much money on modernisation and making themselves efficient. I would


argue that our growers are extremely efficient.
The chairman of the glasshouse produce and flowers committee asked that measures should be taken to harmonise energy costs in horticulture throughout the Community and that artificially low Dutch prices should be eliminated. Secondly, he requested that the Community authorities should ensure that the EEC—protected crop sector had adequate supplies of fuel, particularly in an emergency, and thirdly, that Community authorities should encourage and develop alternative energy sources and research into energy conservation. This is an area in which our Ministry could assist. Finally, he called for the Government to provide additional financial encouragement for energy conservation, particularly through the use of thermal screens.
Last year the United Kingdom glasshouse industry had an output estimated at nearly £200 million, more than £150 million in food crops. The total number of people employed in the industry is 20,000. New capital costs are high. An acre of glass today can cost about £100,000. I feel sorry for those people who have invested an enormous amount of money in the acres of glass erected in the last 10 years in my constituency. They deserve better. There is already evidence of what is happening to growers due to high energy costs and increased imports.
The hon. Member for Chichester telephoned me to say that he would be unable to be present. I should like, however, to quote an example from his constituency with which I am sure he would concur.
The Portsmouth evening newspaper The News of 20 May stated:
 Growers in the Chichester area complain that they are being forced out of business by imports from the Continent and rising costs, particularly of oil.
Spring lettuce was ditched because it was uneconomical to market and the prospects for the tomato season do not look good. A number of nursery workers have had to be laid off.
' We are fighting for our lives ' said Mr. John Francis, chairman of the Land Settlement Association Sidlesham and Batchmere Estates Growers Association.
' Imports have hit us, the price of oil for heating has doubled in the last year and wages have increased by nearly 40 per cent. in two years.'
Owner of the independent Cowdry Nursery

in Sidlesham Lane, Birdham, Mr. Ian Wilson said bluntly: ' I have been forced out of business. We cannot even scratch a living because we cannot pay the overdraft.'
About half—a—dozen growers met Chichester's M. P., Mr. Tony Nelson, and told him of their plight. He has demanded urgent action from the agriculture minister, pointing out that the Dutch have an unfair advantage over our growers.
The report goes on to describe how the three—acre Cowdry Nursery is up for sale. The report states:
 With the closure of two—thirds of an acre of glass his 12,000—gallon heating oil tanks stand empty. Both cars have been sold.
'The nursery is up for sale but nobody will buy it "he said … ' but I protest that when we do not over—produce, the Government opens the flood—gates from the Continent.
' In January there were 60 per cent. more Dutch lettuce on the market than in 1979. Last July there were 10,000 extra tons of tomatoes on our market than in the previous year. The price of tomatoes was as low last year as it was in 1971–72.
' If we did not have the imports we should be able to cover our overdraft. We accept either a low price or a high bank rate, but we cannot exist with both.'
Pointing to the effect of the doubling in the price of oil, Mr. Wilson said that when he started it was 7p a gallon. Wages rose 20 per cent. this year, following a 19 per cent. rise last. year.
' We grow, then beg for a Jiving. For the last year we have not made even a living. The Conservative Government let imports of foreign lettuce increase this winter—by 60 per cent. in January. This lowered the market price dramatically.
' We do not over—produce lettuce and tomatoes in this country, we over—import.' 
Growers in my constituency are saying much the same. If the situation is allowed to continue, more glasshouses will stand empty and their produce will rot, while the Dutch and French walk all over us. With a little help and a fairer share of our market, our growers could continue to hold their position and provide the quality of produce that we have rightly come to expect. My plea is that these hard—working, industrious people should not be deserted. They ask only for equal treatment. Surely that is not to be denied them.
Like the Minister, I have attended many meetings of farmers. They are not always friendly affairs. I always find growers are most reasonable people. They are hardworking and understanding. I feel desperately for them.
I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture would like to help but that the Secretary of State for Energy is opposed


to such a move. If that is so, I urge the Minister to press the case in Cabinet. Otherwise, he will go down in history as the man who allowed the glasshouse industry to be destroyed.
I have already asked about the Commission's long awaited report. I should also like to know what will be the effect of the Gas Bill on the glasshouse industry. Will the industry be adversely affected by the proposed tariff rates? If no reply is available now, I would appreciate a written reply from the Minister. The National Farmers Union would certainly like clarification. It is known that there are to be price increases. Will the recently introduced Gas Bill add to the problems? If there are to be further price increases through taxation of gas profits affecting growers who have a gas supply—that will not apply in my constituency for another five years—they would like to know. I hope that the Minister can give growers some ground for optimism. Time is of the essence. Growers in this country are very near the point of no return.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on his success in the ballot and on presenting his case clearly. I acknowledge also the interest in this matter expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), and by a number of hon. Members who have glasshouses in their constituencies, particularly those who have Land Settlement Association estates in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight will know that my Department is landlord to the Land Settlement Association. It is one of my responsibilities to oversee the welfare of that organisation. Its difficulties are substantial. I am familiar with them.
I welcome the opportunity of this debate to explain the Government's position. The hon. Gentleman mentioned on two occasions that imports of French tomatoes were causing difficulties. The problem really concerns Dutch, not French, tomatoes. In fairness, for a change, perhaps, we should not blame

the French for something that is not, on this occasion, a problem. Indeed, the problems in France are not dissimilar to those in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I was referring to French lettuce, as opposed to French tomatoes.

Mr. Wiggin: I shall keep an eye on the matter, but the problem with which we are trying to deal relates to Dutch tomatoes.
The questions raised by the hon. Gentleman reflect the present concern felt by the whole glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the glasshouse growers' worries about fuel costs and the effect of Dutch competition. My right hon. Friend, who, I am delighted to see, has found time to be present this morning—it reflects his deep concern about the matter—has been in close touch with the president of the National Farmers Union on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy attended the British Growers Look—Ahead Conference in Harrogate in February and dealt with the question of fuel supplies and costs, and I had an opportunity at firsthand last Friday to talk to growers in Gloucestershire when I visited the Land Settlement Association's holdings at Newent.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the situation in Europe. The best thing that I can do is quote a rather long extract from a letter that my right hon. Friend wrote to the president of the National Farmers Union on 9 May, which succinctly deals with this point:
 I, and indeed other Agriculture Ministers have spoken in the strongest possible terms at meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers about the distortions of competition which have emerged in the energy field because of differences in energy pricing policies. In addition, I have impressed on the Commission the urgency with which they should complete and present the report which they have promised on comparative costs and aids. I can assure you that I shall continue to press for a full report to be presented for consideration by the Council of Ministers as soon as possible.
I fully appreciate the problems being faced by the glasshouse sector and that the recently announced gas price increases to Dutch growers will not necessarily provide a satisfactory solution. I am sure that a solution must lie in seeing that growers throughout the Community are able to compete on equal commercial terms by paying realistic prices for


their fuel; they cannot be shielded from the harsh realities of the energy situation which has become a fact of life for the whole of industry. With this in mind, I am determined that this whole field shall be subject to the closest scrutiny within the Community.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I must once again say that the Government do not fix the day—to—day price of oil. North Sea oil is priced at world levels, and the vast majority of our growers use oil fuel. In the few cases in which growers use gas, prices are negotiated individually between the grower and the gas board.
I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the Gas Bill, but I shall write to him. This applies to only a few growers, because of the nature of the industry.
The NFU has requested, as is predictable and well known, an increase in the grant for assistance to growers, but that has to be considered against the general background of overall energy policy and not solely as a measure of assistance to horticulture. It has to be accepted that energy is a scarce resource. The high price of fuel today reflects its scarcity value. Although the real price of oil might ease from time to time, as I have said was the case between 1975 and 1978, there can be no doubt that the era of cheap energy is over. Realistic pricing of energy also has a role to play in energy conservation.
In this situation of high—cost energy there are many industries that would like assistance with their fuel costs, even for a short period, but even temporary relief would make the eventual adjustment much more difficult when the reality of current costs had to be faced. Moreover, a fuel subsidy, even if it could be restricted to the protected crops sector, would cut across the Government's public expenditure policies. We are determined to bring about a reduction in public expenditure. There are many calls on available funds, and the horticulture industry already receives a not unreasonable share of Government assistance. In short, the Government have decided that an exception cannot be made for the protected crops sector to the policy of realistic energy pricing.
I should mention that horticulturists receive full rebate on excise duty on oil for glassheating and soil sterilisation, and their supplies are zero rated for VAT.

These aids are in addition to assistance through the capital grants schemes operated by my Department.
The solution to the industry's problems must lie in seeing that growers throughout the Community are able to compete on equal commercial terms by paying realistic prices for their fuel. As I have already shown with the letter that I quoted, my right hon. Friend is determined that this whole field shall be subject to the closest scrutiny within the Community. He has spoken forcefully in the Council, and I hope that he will be able to get some view from the Commission in the near future.
As for competition from the Dutch, we have to recognise that the Dutch growers at present enjoy a real advantage in their supplies of cheap gas. It is not surprising that, given its close proximity to the supplies, 95 per cent, of the Dutch glasshouse area is heated by gas. Over a long period I have received many complaints that this represents unfair treatment. I repeat what has been said many times in this House and to growers and their representatives—we have no evidence that the prices charged to Dutch growers are below the cost of production and are therefore "unfair" in terms of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
The Dutch Government have expressed concern about the relatively low price of their gas. In 1978 the Dutch announced a policy for parity between Dutch oil and gas prices by April 1980. Parity was in fact achieved early in 1979, but the gap almost immediately reopened as a result of oil price increases, and the Dutch growers once more had a considerable edge over their competitors on fuel costs. However, last month the Dutch authorities announced that the price of gas to Dutch horticulturists, fixed for a year last autumn, would be increased by 51 per cent., in four stages, by 1 October 1981. The first tranche of 17¼ per cent. was to take effect from 1 April 1980.
On present oil prices in Holland, this package will restore parity by 1 October 1981, assuming that oil prices remain stable. Before the hon. Member intervenes, I hasten to say that I realise that it is most unlikely that oil prices will be held at current levels. Indeed, in the news this morning there is an indication that prices are going up. But I understand


that the Dutch authorities have said that they will be prepared to look at gas prices before 1 October 1981 if oil prices increase significantly in the interim. The House can be assured that we will be monitoring fuel costs closely in the coming months, and keeping a watchful eye on reactions in Holland to oil price increases.
It has been suggested that we should impose restrictions on imports of Dutch produce. I understand the feelings of those who advocate this course. Unless the Community rules on competition are breached—when redress could be sought—it would be contrary to our Treaty obligations to impose quantitative restrictions on intra—Community trade. I know that hon. Members will draw comparisons with actions taken by other Community members on another front, but I am sure that the right way is to seek to solve this problem constructively, not obstructively.
I have touched briefly on the question of energy conservation. In this connection, COPA COGECA sent a motion to the European Commission last month seeking a Community programme to help producers to invest in energy saving and conservation. The Commission has yet to react to this motion. It was on that subject that my right hon. Friend wrote to the president of the NFU. We were pleased to see that the NFU has announced the setting up of a working party under the chairmanship of its vice—president, Mr. Christopher Righton, to review the impact on the agriculture and horticulture industries of the steeply rising cost of fossil fuels and that, as well as looking at the rising costs, the working party will examine the scope for greater efficiency in the use of fuels, ways of cutting energy losses and switching to alternative fuels. This is a very constructive approach to the problem, and my Department will be happy to assist that committee on the technical side as best it can.
It is, of course, the Government's policy to encourage more efficient use of energy. The capital grant schemes operated by my Department provide assistance to growers investing in energy saving improvements. Grants are available for the installation of thermal screens, insulation of buildings, boiler conversion and improving

boiler efficiency, in addition to the grants on more general capital investments growers make. Current rates of grant ranging from 15 to 32·5 per cent. under the various schemes represent a sizeable incentive to growers to invest in energy saving measures. In addition, a substantial research and development programme is under way in this area. I am seeking to visit the glasshouse research establishment myself next month, with a view to seeing some of this work at firsthand.
We are not only examining existing energy saving methods to determine whether they can be improved, but are looking into the possibility of using alternative sources of energy. Some of this work—such as the use of double skin rigid plastic structures—could turn out to be of real practical value to individual growers. If the work is successful we would, of course, consider adding it to the list of items eligible for grant. Meanwhile, local ADAS officers will, of course, be ready to give advice to growers on how best to adapt their existing facilities to make the most efficient use of energy.
Finally, I stress that we are anxious to see an efficient horticulture industry, able to compete with all comers, but we see no advantage in seeking to shield the industry from what I fear must be the harsh realities of present—day energy costs. But we will do everything possible to make sure that its competitors within the Community are also brought face to face with those realities so that competition is on reasonable commercial terms so far as energy costs are concerned.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH HAZARDS

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I begin by offering an apology to the Under—Secretary of State for Employment because I have been abroad with a Select Committee for the past couple of days and have not been able, as I should have liked, to give him some indication of the topic I intended to raise, to enable him to give some thought to it before he replies.
However, the capacity of the hon. and learned Gentleman for thinking on his


feet is well known in the House and I have no doubt that he will rise triumphantly to any challenge that my humble observations may pose. If I catch him out on a point which he cannot answer off the top of his head I know that he will be good enough to drop me a line and let me know what he thinks.
Occupational hazards, industrial injuries and industrial accidents impose a double burden on the community. First, they cause much human suffering and, secondly, they impose a great economic burden. The loss of man days of work per annum as a result of industrial disease—much of it avoidable—and through industrial accidents—many of them avoidable—is great.
I am always struck by the fact—although I am not surprised—that our newspapers, especially the gutter section of the press, devote so much of their acreage of newsprint to discussing days lost through strikes. They never mention that about 10 times as many days are lost as a result of preventable accidents and preventable illness as the total number of days lost through strikes.
I refer first to occupation—related cancer. I shall not say much about this since I am not terribly well informed on the subject. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) is in his place and if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to speak on this matter from his wide—ranging and deep professional experience.
I wish to put three points to the Minister. First, as he will know, there have been sharply conflicting estimates of cancer arising from occupational causes. I think that there is an obligation on the Government to set up an inquiry so that we can have an authoritative answer to those questions which worry so many people and about which, as I have said, there is no clarity.
Secondly, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what steps he has in mind—and I trust that he has some steps in mind—to introduce comprehensive regulations for the control of carcinogens in the environment. There has been a sharp increase in the incidence of industrial—based carcinogens in the environment. Something should be done about that and I hope that the Minister will be able to

tell us that he proposes to do something.
My third point is that the victims of industrial cancer experience great difficulty in claiming compensation by way of common law damages. I should like the Minister to invite the Law Officers to look at this to see whether there is a way of dealing with the problem that does not unfairly disadvantage the victim, as do the present arrangements.
I turn from cancer to a subject about which I do know something because I have been taking an interest in it for many years, namely, the incidence of disease among workers in laboratories, especially those employed in National Health Service laboratories. This is a matter about which there is a good deal of controversy and, again, the issues are not absolutely clear. But there is strong, widespread suspicion that laboratory workers may now be called an "at risk" group. For that reason they need special care and attention.
In recent years during my involvement with the subject there have been some improvements as a result of the implementation of some parts—and some parts only—of the Howie report. However, much more still needs to be done and there are three priorities which the Department should examine. One of them concerns cancer. There is a suspected excess of cancer known as lymphoma, I do not put it more strongly, in laboratory workers. The Institute of Cancer Research is ready and willing to do research in this area provided that funds are available. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to try to persuade a Government Department—perhaps the Department of Health and Social Security would be appropriate—to find the money to enable the Institute of Cancer Research to examine this problem. It would not need a lot of money.
The second of the three priorities concerns the lack of records in National Health Service laboratories of absences caused by sickness, the rate of absence and what causes the sickness among laboratory workers. Research is needed into this problem, which is not confined to laboratory staff. There are many sectors of employment in the National Health Service where there is, prima facie, an enhanced risk and figures should be produced and the situation monitored. The third priority is the removal of


hazards. That is absolutely essential to any long—term strategy. If the Howie report were implemented in full that would deal with the problem but the National Health Service is not funding the introduction of the Howie reforms on the basis required. By what date does the Minister expect the recommendations of the Howie report to be fully implemented in all National Health Service laboratories? What, if any, extra funding is the Department making available to meet the costs of doing that and what steps are being taken to ensure that there are proper plans for the implementation of the Howie recommendations?
I have seen the annual report of a large and important area health authority which shows that not one penny is provided in its budget for implementation of the Howie recommendations. I do not know whether that AHA is the only one which takes such a derisive view of this important subject. There may be others as well, but that does not look promising.
The largest sector of industrial disability concerns excessive noise in industry which results in industrial deafness. I am surprised to discover that it is almost a century since people began to worry about this problem. The first representations about industrial deafness were made in about 1888 yet noise is still the most widespread industrial hazard. The last major survey of the problem, undertaken in 1971, showed that between 500,000 and I million workers are exposed to levels of noise in excess of the 90 decibel level over eight hours which is now supposed to be the absolute maximum. A noise level of 90 decibels can be compared to working 20 yards from a pneumatic drill. Hon. Members would not be happy working eight hours under such circumstances.
About 2 million workers are exposed to noise levels, if not in excess of 90 decibels, in excess of the 84 decibels which the Trades Union Congress demands should be fixed as the maximum. Nearly all the pressures about noise levels have come from the TUC which has done a lot of research into the problem. There is no legislative restriction on the amount of noise that an employer can inflict on workers outside two small classes of worker—people who use woodworking machinery or drive tractors. An employer can make

his place as noisy as he likes. The current United Kingdom standards are not legislative. They were embodied in a code of practice in 1972 issued after a chap named Frank Berry succeeded in being awarded compensation in the courts for industrial deafness. The code is voluntary and it is largely ignored. It contains gaping loopholes which require workers to provide their own protection by wearing ear—protectors. That is never totally satisfactory.
In 1974 the responsibility for noise control was taken over by the Health and Safety Commission. It established a noise advisory committee and issued a discussion document looking forward to legislation on the control of noise. The Health and Safety Executive has taken action to achieve compliance with the 1972 code. It issues about 30 improvement notices each year. Progress within the advisory committee is being stalled by a deadlock between trade union representatives and employer representatives who are not able to agree on the maximum penalty.
The effects of noise on health are serious. Noise results in a reduction in hearing ability, which is temporary if one goes away from the noise, but if a person is exposed to noise for any length of time the impairment becomes permanent. The continued exposure to noise creates a permanent threshold shift in hearing. Irreversible damage is done to cells in the inner ear. It wipes out sounds at certain frequencies. That condition cannot be improved by a hearing aid because all that hearing aids do is to amplify the distorted sound.
Hearing loss is not the only hazard. An impairment in hearing leads to many accidents because the warning sounds are not heard. The demand for the control of noise must be backed by more attention being paid to noise prevention in the design and installation of machinery. Every designer should reduce to the absolute minimum noise made by the implement that he is designing.
Machinery and industrial products should not be allowed into the workplace unless they meet stringent noise standards. The United States Government have no problems with their legislation. The 1972 Noise Control Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a series


of regulations setting noise limits for a list of specified products. Similar limits should be incorporated in existing British standards. We should give the standards legal backing in a noise control measure.
I do not wish to detain the House for long because others wish to speak and we want to hear the Under—Secretary of State. However, I wish to mention one controversial matter. The Government's contribution to occupational hazards has been entirely negative. The Social Services (No. 2) Bill provides a cut in the uprating for industrial injuries benefit. People who are disabled by an occupational disease or accident—the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) described as "the work wounded"—will have their real income decreased by 5 per cent. per annum. That is as mean an action as one can conceive. Of course, it fits the standard Conservative pattern of benefiting the strong and hammering the weak and of directing the most severe attacks at the weakest and most vulnerable sectors of the community.
A man who is put out of work by an accident in the factory or by a disease contracted as a result of his work deserves better treatment. While the Government are giving tax relief to wealthy people they say to others "From now on your reward for having suffered an industrial injury or disease is that your living standards will be cut by 5 per cent. a year".
It is too late to do anything about that unless something is done in another place—and I have no optimistic hopes about that. It would be wrong not to put the Government's attitude on the record. I hope that I have persuaded the Under—Secretary of State that he can take constructive action to compensate at least a little for the Government's meanness.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I do not intend to mention any subjects other than those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).
Two groups of diseases account for about 70 per cent. of all deaths in our society. The biggest killer is the group of diseases known as the cardiovascular group. The second biggest killer is cancer. To prevent or cure these diseases would be the biggest contribution to

health and longevity since the discovery of methods of controlling epidemiological diseases—for example, by ridding water of dangerous pollutants, better sanitation, and the use of antibiotic drugs. The battle in that respect continues.
I intend not to refer to cardiovascular disease but to concentrate on the No. 2 killer—cancer. That disease kills one person in five and disables one in four. Cancer has been thought of as covering a group of diseases that affect mainly the elderly, but in recent years there has grown the startling realisation that that is not the case. In the age group 35–54 cancer is the major killer. In the age group 5–34, cancer is the second biggest killer—second only to accidents. In the age group 55–74 cancer is the second biggest killer—second only to heart disease. Therefore, from 5 to 54 cancer is a major problem, as it is in the elderly group also.
Cancer as a disease of the ageing body functions is something that we shall have to accept for a long time—until immortality is within our grasp, but cancer in the younger age groups is another matter. Apart from teratomas, to a large extent cancer is a disease caused by chemical and physical agents in our environment. The link between smoking and cancer, especially lung cancer, is well established. Many of the environmental factors are not self—inflicted; they are imposed upon us at work. Their removal is very much a social matter rather than an individual problem.
Occupationally linked cancer accounts for between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. of all cancer deaths. Many carcinogenic substances have been discovered in the workplace, and their removal or control is vital in any cancer prevention policy. I have statistics for occupational cancer in men from 1966 to 1969. They indicate the excess risk of cancer of various parts of the body in a number of occupations. For example, cancer of the lip is five times more prevalent in agricultural workers than in the general population, two and a half times more prevalent in farmers, twice as prevalent in construction workers and almost twice as prevalent in labourers. I could detail a whole list of cancers—for example, cancer of the oesophagus, liver, pancreas, larynx, rectum, stomach, nose, lung, bronchus, skin, prostate, bladder and brain, and


Hodgkin's disease—with a clear indication that all those cancers are more common in certain occupations than among the general population.
The list of carcinogenic agents in the workplace is long. Obviously there is a link between the workplace and the carcinogenic agents. I wish to mention a few of the agents. There is 3:4 benzpyrine, a constituent of all tars, which causes skin cancer whenever there is prolonged exposure to tar, soot or mineral oil, especially shale oil obtained from the bituminous shales of Scotland. We can imagine the extent to which the irritant carcinogenic effects of mineral oil is prevalent in the engineering industry.
We used to have cancer of the scrotum in chimney sweeps and cotton mule spinners. By 1955 there were 2,000 cases of cancer of the scrotum in mule spinners. More recently, there has been an indication of cancer developing in the engineering industry, especially in metal cutting operations using automatic machine tools, caused by exposure to mineral oils. There are also beta-napthylamine and other aromatic amines in the rubber and dyestuffs industries. They cause bladder cancer. As long ago as 1895 it was observed in the German dyestuffs industry that cancer of the bladder was more prevalent than in the general population. By 1912 a survey in Germany and Switzerland showed that it was 33 times more common in aniline dye workers than among the general population. In Britain and the United States, notably in ICI and Du Pont, which use the aromatic amines in dyestuff production, bladder cancer became a problem.
I shall briefly mention asbestos. It is another substance which, because of the smallness of its fibres, penetrates deeply into the lung even after one exposure. The tiny fibres can remain in the. lungs for the rest of a person's life. Prolonged exposure to the inhalation of asbestos leads to fibrosis—asbestosis is a form of fibrosis of the lung—and also to lung cancer.
I turn to another substance that is widely used in industry—vinyl chloride monomer. That is used in the rubber and plastics industries. It is a carcinogen that causes liver cancer. I could continue with the list at great length, mentioning

other carcinogenic substances—such as benzene, which is manufactured on a large scale and is a potent carcinogen. Of course, exposure to radiation causes some types of cancer. It is something to which we are all subject to some extent, but in many industries workers are exposed to it to a much greater extent.
It is obvious that carcinogens pose a hazard that is qualitatively different from that of other toxic substances, for a number of reasons. First, there is no known safe level of exposure. Secondly, there is a long latent period between exposure and the manifestation of the disease. Thirdly, the disease is irreversible and carries a high mortality rate, except in skin cancer, which has a high rate of cure. Fourthly, to detect susceptibility of people to cancer is not a feasible proposition. Fifthly, there is no widely available screening procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, in his excellent speech about cancer, indicated—as I shall do—what we should be doing about the disease. First, there should be a quick and effective regulation of carcinogens that have found their way into the workplace. A large number have been identified, and they should be regulated. Secondly, comprehensive guidelines are needed to ensure that any substance that is shown to be carcinogenic is either removed from commerce entirely or used in such a way as to render the level of exposure to zero.
Thirdly, I recommend a national campaign to screen all commercially used chemicals for any carcinogenic potential. I am not suggesting that we should become obsessional or paranoid about the dangers. We should, however, be able to pinpoint them, to tabulate them and, where possible, to render them innocuous. If that is not possible, we should be able to make sure that people are protected to the best of our ability. All suspected and regulated carcinogens should be clearly labelled. Everyone should know when something is a cancer agent or a suspected cancer agent.
Fourthly, companies using such substances should be compelled by law to keep comprehensive records, showing the quantities used, the persons who come into contact with them, the results of


regular environmental monitoring exercises, and the results of regular medical checks.
Lastly, there should be measures to prevent further catastrophes. There is no doubt that the increases in bladder cancer and in some other cancers—skin cancers in sweeps and in mule spinners—were catastrophes. There should be measures to prevent further catastrophes by pre-testing and licensing of chemicals before they are allowed to be used. There should be compensation for the victims of past exposure to carcinogens as these victims are identified.
A great deal remains to be done, but if we can battle with cancer as a disease or group of diseases and defeat it, we shall be contributing a tremendous amount to the human race.
I should like to add one or two points to the very comprehensive statement of facts made by my hon. Friend on occupational deafness. I think that we would all agree that noise has become a major problem and hazard in our society. One has only to stand on a busy street and hear the din from lorries going past and from aeroplanes flying above to realise the irritant nature of the noise problem. It is very much worse in industry. It is not only an irritant-and irritation leads to loss of health and to a proneness to accidents; it is extremely dangerous.
My hon. Friend indicated the number of workers exposed to excessive noise. They are probably in excess of 2 million. The level of noise to which they are exposed is in excess of what the Trades Union Congress would like to achieve-a maximum of 84 dB. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, and the intensity of any noise is doubled by an increase of only 3 dB. My hon. Friend talked about a 90 dB level, which is equivalent to working about 20 yards from a pneumatic drill, so that 93 dB is twice the noise intensity of 90 dB, and 96 dB is four times as great as 90 dB.
It can be seen clearly, therefore, that there are enormous dangers in factories where the noise level goes up not to 96 dB or even 100 dB, but is sometimes 125 dB or even higher—30 times the level

at which serious injury to health can be avoided.
An enormous amount of information is available on the problem of excessive noise-I have leaflets from the Department of Health and Social Security and from the Health and Safety Executive on noise and deafness-yet nothing much is done to help the people who are involved. There should be much more testing of ears and of hearing. We need quieter machinery. We need more warnings. We need compensation for the victims of deafness.
I conclude by reading a letter from a constituent. It states:
 Loss of hearing is as big a loss as that of sight or speech. Unfortunately, the loss occurs gradually and one cannot specify when it actually occurred. Deafness is a major disability and any person so affected by occupational deafness should be compensated just the same as any other person who is disabled through his employment.
I commend that letter to the Under-Secretary of State together with my own feelings as a doctor. Deafness is as bad an affliction as blindness and ought to be regarded in that way.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) on securing his place in the debate and selecting this most important subject. He began his speech with a gracious apology-none was needed, for I entirely understand why he was not able to notify me of the points upon which he intended to concentrate-and with a reference to the wide area covered by the subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) will excuse any inaccuracy that creeps into my response as I attempt, in the 15 minutes available to me, to deal with their points. If I later detect any inaccuracies, I shall do my best to correct them.
I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said about the need to remember always the very high cost, in terms of human suffering and in terms of economic loss, occasioned by injury and disability sustained at work. We tend, perhaps, to overlook the economic loss.
The Government are well aware of the need never to become complacent, even


though we can rejoice in a modest way in the fact that deaths at work are down by about 25 per cent, over the last six years. We do not yet know whether that has become a trend, but it is a movement in the right direction. But we must never allow ourselves to think that we have done enough.
I have some personal experience in this area. For about 20 years I did a great deal of work at the Bar on industrial injuries. I was brought face to face with the consequences of industrial disease and industrial accidents. I have a great interest in the subject, and also in improving occupational health in this country. My experience enables me to pay a special tribute to the work of occupational health doctors and nurses up and down the country, in factories and in other workplaces.
We can draw great encouragement from the fact that the Royal College of Physicians a year ago established a Faculty of Occupational Medicine. I was fortunate enough to be able to visit it a week or two ago. It is a good thing that Dr. Duncan, who is director of medical services for the Employment Medical Advisory Service, which advises the Health and Safety Executive, has been closely associated with that faculty from its inception.
I know that the House is familiar with the broad structure by which we seek to give guidance in this country relating to matters of industrial safety and occupational health and safety. The House will be familiar with the structure of the Health and Safety Commission, and of the executive which carries out the functions imposed upon the commission by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
I have already referred to the Employment Medical Advisory Service, which is the medical arm of the Health and Safety Executive. That service has a general responsibility to take action to help prevent ill health caused by work and to advise those with health problems on the type of work that suits them or which they should avoid on health grounds. The service provides an important source of information and advice to employers, trade unions and employees on the potential health problems of different types of employment and on the provision of occupational,

medical, nursing and first aid services.
The debate has concentrated upon occupational cancer and upon noise and the deafness that it can occasion at work and in the environment. The hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for East Kilbride have referred to sharply conflicting estimates of the incidence of occupational cancer. The hon. Member for East Kilbride-I defer to his great professional knowledge-said that occupationally-linked cancers probably account for 20 to 40 per cent, of all cancer deaths. That is a figure that is put forward by the Califano study in America. It was carried out in 1978 by the National Cancer Institute.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the methodology of that study has been severely criticised by scientists in the United States and in the United Kingdom. It is the view of the Health and Safety Executive that no reliable estimate of the percentage of deaths from cancer that are due to occupational factors can be determined and that there is no pathological distinction between non-occupational and occupational cancers. In many instances a combination of contributory factors exists.
The Government do not regard occupational cancer as anything but a most serious risk. However, I wish to put the matter in perspective. In 1978 an influential group of the Royal Society estimated occupational cancers as being about 1 per cent, of all cancers. Therefore, a wide disparity of views are genuinely and honestly held about the incidence of occupational cancers.
I refer briefly to the Health and Safety Executive's policy on toxic substances and especially on carcinogenic substances. Its policy is set out in the guidance note entitled "Guidance Note EH 15—Toxic Substances: A Precautionary Policy ". Briefly, it is that exposure should be kept as low as reasonably practicable, and in any event within the published threshold limit values. The same applies to control limits. The guidance note states that this should be achieved by the application of occupational hygiene principles and techniques of control appropriate to the extent of exposure and the likely route of entry to the body. Personal protective equipment is usually used only as a last


line of defence, the emphasis being placed on enclosure and engineering controls.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride referred to the need for testing. As proposed by Lord Robens in his report in 1972, the Health and Safety Executive has embarked on the preparation of legislation requiring the testing of new substances for their potential hazard and the submission of data to the executive not less than 45 days before placing a substance on the market.
The regulations when made will form one of the main ingredients of HSC policy aimed at determining the hazard at its earliest possible time and not waiting for events to reveal danger 25 years later. We all know how long it took for pneumoconiosis and the various forms of it to be recognised as deriving from certain substances. The hon. Gentleman mentioned asbestos. We must do better in identifying potential hazards at an early stage.
The executive has also engaged in the drafting of proposed legislation for the control of exposure to carcinogenic substances in the workplace to give effect to the ILO convention No. 139 and recommendation 147 on prevention and control of occupational hazards caused by carcinogenic substances and agents. This will be in amplification of the Carcinogenic Substances Regulations 1967, which are already in force.
I noticed that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, in his useful and interesting list of carcinogenic substances, referred to beta-naphthylamine. Since 1967 that substance has been subject to an order prohibiting its manufacture in Britain. That is an absolute prohibition. No person shall be employed in any factory in connection with the manufacture of that substance and of others.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I declare an interest. I used to be employed in ICI, and I know something about this business. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to "manufacture". Manufacture is banned in Britain, but is there a ban on the use of the substance as an additive?

Mr. Mayhew: I must write to the hon. Gentleman about that. I shall have to conclude my speech in about five minutes.

I shall refer him to the fourth paragraph of the 1967 regulations, and we shall clear up that issue.
I want to try to deal with the various issues that have been raised. In the remaining five minutes of my speech I may appear to jump from one issue to another and to be rather superficial. Bearing in mind that I have only five minutes in which to deal with many matters, I hope that that will be understood.
The lion. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said that the Government should establish an inquiry to ascertain where the truth lies in the incidence of occupational cancer. The Health and Safety Executive is advised by the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances. It attaches importance to further research into this subject. I do not think that there is a case for establishing and initiating a special inquiry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the need to establish where the truth lies is recognised as important.
I have mentioned the steps that have been taken to control carcinogens in the environment. That is something that the Health and Safety Executive has in mind. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the victims of industrial cancer have great difficulty in claiming compensation at law. He asks the Government to approach the Law Officers on that issue. He will know that the Royal Commission under Lord Pearson did not recommend a system of non-fault liability for industrial disease of this nature. It would be a major departure if we were to go down the road that the hon. Gentleman described.
Common law is always developing. The hon. Member for East Kilbride referred to cancers of the scrotum. It is well recognised by the courts that such cancers are able to derive from negligence and that compensation should be paid in consequence. I cannot promise that we shall embark on a system of non-fault liability in respect of that type of injury.
The hon. Gentleman referred to disease among laboratory workers. It is recognised that there are special risks for those who work in laboratories. The HSE inspectorate visits laboratories, in the same way as it visits other industrial establishments. The commission has established a national industry group to evaluate and study the problems.
A working party chaired by Sir James Howie formulated a code of practice for the prevention of infection in clinical laboratories. Discussions are continuing between the executive and the Department of Health and Social Security on the implementation of those proposals. I cannot say when the proposals will be implemented.
I agree that industrial deafness is an important subject. Indeed, deafness can be as serious as blindness. The disability is not obvious, and that may involve great danger in certain circumstances. In the middle of the 1960s common law took note of industrial deafness, and as a result compensation is awarded if deafness is found to have arisen as a result of the employer's or occupier's negligence.
In 1978 the commission issued a consultative document on the subject of hazards from noise. It was entitled "Audiometry in Industry ". Comments have been received and the document is now under consideration by the Health and Safety Commission. The Factory Inspectorate and the Employment Medical Advisory Service advise industry on the reduction of noise. Where reduction is difficult to achieve, they advise industry on protective equipment. I hope that I have said enough to show that the executive and the Government consider this an important subject.
I shall not take up time by dealing with the hon. Gentleman's castigation of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. It gives the Government no pleasure to reduce the uprating of benefits by 5 per cent. However, we feel that that must be done as part of the overriding need to defeat inflation.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride said that the carcinogens were of a different quality and that they were difficult to identify. He pointed out that there was no safe level of exposure. All those points must be taken into account by the Health and Safety Executive.
The only way to achieve total safety and to avoid the contraction of cancer at work is to forbid any exposure to any substance that might possibly be connected with cancer. However, we should then lose sight of the essential quality of health and safety legislation. We must maintain a reasonable balance and apply

standards that conform with what is reasonably practicable. Although we must not disregard such dangers, and although we must always consider whether there are practical ways of guarding people against such dangers-whose nature may expand with the increase of modern technology-total safety should not be achieved at the cost of our ability to earn our living and to maintain our industrial society.
If one looks back over our industrial history, one becomes aware of the physical suffering and distress that can result from unsuspected or unheeded dangers. We shall never succeed in matching hindsight with foresight. However, we must never relax our efforts to understand the full consequences of occupational activities and the likely consequences of the use of new materials and processes. We should take such protective action as is reasonably practicable. The key is the standard of common sense and reasonableness. The Government attach great importance to that.
With our tripartite foundation for the Health and Safety Commission and the powers invested in the Health and Safety Executive, supported, as it is, by the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances and by the Employment Medical Advisory Service, we are well equipped to meet such extremely important needs. It is valuable that attention has been drawn to those needs in today's debate.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Concessionary Travel for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Act 1980.
2. Social Security Act 1980.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BOARDS

Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted that I have been given an opportunity to draw the attention of the House to industrial training in the United Kingdom. I have no direct link with the training boards, and consequently I have no interest to declare. However, during the early and mid-1960s


I took an active part in the establishment and setting up of national training schemes. I helped to launch industrial training boards.
I note that the Government Think Tank has produced a report that is in part critical of industrial training. I regret that I have not had an opportunity to read it. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate he may care to make some reference to the report. Industrial training boards were established under the Industrial Training Act 1964. That is a most enlightened Act. Indeed, some may claim that it is one of the most enlightened Acts of the past 20 years. For the first time it has brought together representatives of employers, of employees and of education. For the first time they have had an opportunity to work together and to study the problems of industrial training. On the whole, the boards have done a good job, and it is only right that we should review their position today and consider how they are working.
As a result of pressures from outside Parliament, the 1973 Act came into being. The training boards were faced with changes. In some cases changes were imposed before the boards had sufficient time to become fully established. Industrial and commercial training is no less important today than it was in 1964. Given the present world economic situation and advances in technology, some people may believe that the need for training at all levels is greater today than it was in 1964.
In the national interest, there must be some form of training catalysts. To work effectively those catalysts must have certain characteristics. First, they must be statutory so that they cannot be blown away in the short term by pragmatic or populist change. Secondly, they must have powers to apply sanctions, if required. Thirdly, they must be seen to be an integral part of industry and they must be accepted by industry as such. Fourthly, they must be able to act in accordance with national long-term needs. That will call for financial participation by Government as well as by industry. Fifthly, they must also be able to plan and act on a national basis in respect of each industry and each sector.
The catalysts already exist. They are industrial training boards. It has taken

15 years for the boards to achieve general, although qualified, acceptance. Today, they have an established and recognised role.
Few would deny that different boards have enjoyed differing experiences. Some of us recognise that in the normal course of events some boards will have achieved more than others. Any changes that are proposed must build on what has already been achieved and should not disrupt continuing work.
I do not deny and would not wish to deny that training people-I was one myself at one stage-are dedicated individuals, but they often have within their ranks some who are more concerned with the ideal of training and others who are immersed in its mechanics. Often, rather than using training as a vehicle for improving performance and acquiring new skills to improve productivity and profitability, some individuals become wedded to training for its own sake.
I believe that in present economic circumstances and with the record of low profitability that exists throughout British industry, if training boards did not exist we would be busy inventing them now. How else could we actively involve the trade unions, the employers and the educationists if we did not have training boards? If they did not exist, how else-I quote from a speech that the Prime Minister made outside earlier this week-could we invest in
... talent, thrift, business success and the pursuit of excellence "?
I submit that industrial training boards have a part to play in creating new wealth and new jobs. They are useful, credible and acceptable. I further submit that any drastic, radical change would not be helpful and could be counter-productive. Indeed, it could be cost-ineffective and a waste of time and resources.
I accept that some changes are required. With the passage of time we always require change, and I welcome that. I suggest the merging of the more effective and efficient boards with the not-so-effective and not-so-efficient. That seems to be a logical and sensible way to make the best use of existing talent and resources. I suggest also that the present relationship between the boards and the Manpower Services Commission is far from happy, or satisfactory. In particular, the


arrangement whereby the Manpower Services Commission pays board administration and operation costs is disliked by people in industry and on the boards. This causes difficulties both for the Manpower Services Commission and the boards, because it results in Government financial practices being applied to board operations.
Conceivably, the total amount of money spent-about £90 million by the MSC and £100 million contributed by the boards and collected within industry-is sufficient to meet the present training needs of industry. I am not suggesting or arguing that we should spend more money in this area but I am suggesting that we should look at the way in which the money is being spent. How are the funds applied? We may also question the split.
Most training activities are worthy of support, yet we spend 10 times as much money on welfare schemes than on wealth-creating schemes. It is not surprising that intervention is seen as a social rather than an economic environment. Therefore, it would be wise for the Government's contributions to take another form. I recommend a block grant related to the size of the industry and linked to the amount of money collected within that industry. The Government would then be investing in firms and industries that were prepared to invest in themselves. I feel very strongly about that. We should spend money where people are prepared to spend and invest themselves.
In addition, the Government could also invest in specific areas, such as the initial period spent by young people in industry. The Government could develop and encourage recruitment into skilled areas where there are chronic shortages. This could be done by making use of training facilities in individual firms. I suggest that young men who are trained by Rolls-Royce and ICI, for example, are more acceptable to the trade union than individuals trained in skillcentres. We should recommend that young men receive training so that at the end of the day they will be marketable in their own interests. We must look at this whole question more carefully.
I do not wish to make political points;
I am simply concerned about young people and the shortages of skills within industry. The present situation in which policy is made by the MSC and interpreted and applied by its staff leaves a lot to be desired. Indeed, the common view is that it does not work well.
We need a restatement that industry is best equipped to carry out its own training. Each industry should determine its own training needs, and the training boards should be run by people in that industry and for that industry. That is the most cost-effective way to provide training that meets effectively the needs of that industry.
I do not believe that we should create training empires, yet to be effective the training boards must have the support of the largest firms within an industry. That is why we must involve the training departments of all firms working in conjunction with the training board in their own industry. That should apply to both large and small firms. In that way training will become credible and acceptable. It was once honourable to undergo training in engineering and other skills in this country. Sadly, that is not so today. We must reverse that trend. I believe that training must be seen as an investment. It must be linked to profits and returns on investment. Therefore, meaningful audits should be carried out and training assessed and evaluated on a regular basis.
I should like to draw attention to what happens in the Royal Air Force. All flying instructional units and instructors of those units are subjected to annual tests and assessments. If that can be done in that highly skilled, technical and professional area, something similar can be done in industrial training. I recommend that the Department of Employment should have an inspectorate to ensure that training within industry is assessed and evaluated on a cost-effective basis.
I turn now to the Manpower Services Commission, which, last year, spent between £500 million and £600 million in support of various training activities. Of this, about 15 per cent, went to the industrial training boards.
It is my view that the Manpower Services Commission is too much involved in the policy-making and day-to-day activities of the training boards, and it is not, in my judgment, the best body to carry


out a review of the Employment and Training Act 1973, because it is effectively reviewing itself. I suggest that that is hardly a healthy exercise.
I also suggest that Government agencies, however well run and however well intentioned, are not noted for their determination to reduce their size, scope or influence. Indeed, all past experience in-dictates that the MSC will produce a report that will recommend changes, and the changes, if implemented, will leave the MSC more influential and more dominant than before. Indeed, I recommend that serious consideration be given to the comments and recommendations made by the CBI. In particular, I read the CBI's conclusions and report prepared on this subject. They are as follows:
The primary function of ITBs, if they are to retain to confidence of employers, must be to concentrate on the training needs of their own industries. They must not be diverted from this by being used, as the most convenient organisations on the ground, to further political and social objectives.
 Basic essentials should constitute the criteria on which exemption from levy is granted. Such criteria should be interpreted flexibly according to the needs of individual firms. Exemption certificates should be issued for three years where appropriate.
 Exclusion levels for small firms should either be based on numbers employed or on a wage bill minimum which must be adjusted regularly to take account of inflation …
The main use of the levy should be to bring levy payers up to exemption standards.
 Manpower forecasting is being treated by ITBs as too exact a science. Information being called for is complicated, difficult to produce in the form required, and generally quite incompatible with normal company records. Action is required to ensure that the use of statutory powers for the collection of statistics is kept to a minimum.
In simple language, I am saying "Let's get rid of some of the bumf." That is the view of the CBI, and it is a view which should not be treated lightly.
Today there are 24 industrial training boards. According to my understanding, their estimated expenditure during the year 1980–81 will total about £188 million, of which nearly £84 million will be from public funds. If past experience is a guide, the boards will once again be acting as agents for national manpower policy through the edicts and diktats of the MSC. In addition, the boards will require to set up and run administrative systems to provide the MSC with data that the

boards are unable to relate to the training needs of their particular industry—more bumf that we can get rid of.
I repeat what I said earlier. The 1964 Act brought together representatives of the employers, the employees and the educationists to work together to study the training needs of industry. Sadly, we are often advised by the pundits and the media that a situation of open war exists between trade unions and employers, yet since the mid-1960s both employers and trade unionists have worked together in industrial training. The record of both sides of industry in this sphere is one that brings great credit to the many individuals representing both sides of industry who have given so much of their energy and their time towards training board activities and industrial training.
I believe that it would be very foolish to ignore the scope that exists to build and develop on the foundations that have been laid by those unsung and often ignored dedicated individuals.
Britain desperately needs this kind of co-operation. Consequently, any changes that may be proposed by the MSC review should be studied very carefully—all the more so if one accepts that the MSC is possibly not the best organisation to carry out this review.
The MSC officially came into existence on 1 January 1974. It is made up of a full-time chairman and nine part-time members, representing employers, employees, local government and education. The 1979 MSC review body on the 1973 Act is chaired by Mr. Richard O'Brien, who is the chairman of the MSC and who, I have no doubt, is a very able and competent gentleman. However, we must look at this matter very carefully because this review report is expected shortly. That is why I took the opportunity to raise this matter today. I thought that it was opportune to do so. It could be called a warning shot across the bows. I felt that before the report was produced we ought to think carefully about the matter.
I remind the House of the terms of reference of the review body. They are as follows:
To review the working of the Employment and Training Act 1973 so far as it relates to arrangements for the promotion of training for


employment, together with provision of further education closely associated with industrial training and the links between them, and to make recommendations as to how these arrangements should be altered or developed for the future, having regard to: future needs of the economy for trained manpower of all kinds; the needs of workers, including young people entering employment; the efficient working of the labour market, nationally and locally; the need to ensure the economical and effective use of public funds.
Having heard the terms of reference, can anyone now doubt that the MSC review is largely the MSC looking into its own activities, or into the activities of training boards, which in many instances are defined to a considerable extent by the MSC? It is, in fact, looking into itself. That is why I raise the question of the future of ITBs today and question what the future holds for these boards.
Without industrial training boards, the MSC would be unable to concentrate its effort into TOPS and other training schemes. Also, it would be unable to bring together both sides of industry and education. I agree that ITBs are far from perfect, but we live in a far from perfect world. In many instances the boards have achieved their primary objective, which was to improve the quality and the efficiency of industrial training and to ensure an adequate volume of trained staff. In some areas that has been achieved, but in others it falls far short of the needs of the nation.
I do not object to the review. It was time for a review, but I question the wisdom of the choice of the body to carry out the review and I sound a warning call to the Government to look at the report carefully.
Britain desperately needs industrial training boards. Our industry needs the co-operation that exists in the boards. Employers, trade unions and educationists need organisations within which they can work together for the benefits of the industry in which they are interested.
I recommend that serious consideration should be given to reducing the size and scope of the MSC. I see it as the dead hand of Government, and I have never felt that the Government were the right people to be involved in profit-making, productivity or finding the answers within industry.
I also recommend that an inspection body of the sort used in the Royal Air Force should be established to inspect and monitor training as practised by the various training boards. I suggest that we should reduce the administrative levels of command that are not directly connected with training—get rid of the bumf producers and statistics collectors—and get on with the sharp end of the operation which is training people in industry to meet its needs. Let us get on with finding young people and getting them into the areas in which we are short of skilled individuals. The most effective way of doing that will be to get the MSC off the back of training in industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): I am pleased to reply to the debate, because it has given me the opportunity of listening to the knowledgeable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) on the future of industrial training boards, which is a topical and important matter.
My hon. Friend's speech has shown again the opportunities for a Back Bencher to bring ideas and opinions before the House and before a wider public, and I congratulate him on the clear, forthright and constructive way in which he has explained his views. No doubt he saw me nodding in agreement with a great deal of what he said.
However, my hon. Friend's "warning shot" places me in a dilemma, because I do not want to pre-empt or anticipate the outcome of the MSC review. On the other hand, it would not be fair to leave unanswered some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I hope that I can safely steer a middle course, first by taking a long perspective on our training needs in the 1980s and the problems that we must tackle if, as a nation, we are to adapt satisfactorily, and then by fitting the MSC's review into the broad picture in order to discuss some of the issues at stake.
One theme that emerged insistently in my hon. Friend's speech was the importance of the training issue. I strongly support that view. We must not deceive ourselves into believing that training is a panacea for all our industrial ills, but


it is not too much to say that a healthy industrial future depends critically on whether we get our training right.
Before assessing the performance of the training system and whether we need changes in it, let us consider what exactly are our training requirements. We face a decade in which technical and industrial change will accelerate in pace. In examining the case for training and retraining, the need above all is to meet emerging circumstances rapidly and effectively, and we must therefore seek to ensure that our training arrangements are flexible and responsive so that the labour force can adapt successfully when change occurs. In particular, the changes that we face present a situation in which, as existing jobs vanish, adults increasingly need reorientation and retraining in mid-career in order to acquire the new skills of the 'eighties.
I do not pretend, and my hon. Friend did not pretend, that present arrangements are perfect—not by any means. Although not all skill shortages are caused by inadequate training, the fact that we have skill shortages, even at present levels of unemployment, suggests that considerable scope exists for improving our training arrangements. We require imaginative and radical thinking, in the Government and elsewhere, to ensure that industries and individuals are equipped with the skills that they will need in the decade ahead. Both industry and the MSC, in partnership with the industrial training boards, have a part to play in that training effort.
The great majority of training in this country is provided by employers. Industry and commerce must, both now and in the future, take the lead in planning and providing enough training of the right sort. Firms are the best judge of their own interests and better able than the Government to anticipate future needs. That is how it should be, and they must continue to bear the main responsibility.
But the Government and the MSC will bear their responsibility to help industry where help is necessary to assist the national training effort. A principal need is to provide support for industrial training, and it is here that the MSC's training for skills programme is a foremost priority. It is a comparatively new

approach and has hardly had time to take effect.
The programme involves national training bodies, including ITBs, making systematic assessments of future manpower needs of the sectors that they cover, and taking action to head off damaging skill shortages. Government funds are available to help through the MSC—£55 million is available in the current financial year through the training for skills programme, for allocation towards the support for industries' training plans. In future, MSC grants will be more precisely directed, through ITBs and other training bodies, towards meeting key skill needs and towards the reform of training systems, with special emphasis on problems which are common to a number of industries; for example, training for microelectronics and for computer software functions, training of instrument maintenance personnel, and training for design, development and maintenance engineering skills.
High priority will continue to be given to MSC support designed to secure an adequate intake of young trainees for skilled and technical occupations. Furthermore, there will be a greater emphasis on support to encourage adult training, especially in craft and technician occupations where there are skill shortages.
I believe the training for skills programme to be a crucial initiative, for two reasons. It offers the opportunity, first, to remove some of the apparently insoluble restraints, such as skill shortages, on our capacity as a nation to pursue industrial growth, and, secondly to ensure that our work force, consisting of both young people and adults, is able to make the most of its talents at work.
These are important and encouraging developments, but we must ask ourselves whether enough is being done to point our industrial training arrangements towards the needs of the 'eighties and 'nineties. This, of course, is where the MSC's review of industrial training, including the operation of the ITBs, becomes highly relevant.
In all quarters, including I suspect in this House, there is little dissent from the proposition that we need much more flexible arrangements. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that we embark upon the 1980s with a training system rooted


in the Victorian era. It is a system which is rigid, hidebound by tradition and custom, and far too slow to respond to change and challenge. As a nation, we devote disproportionate resources to apprentice training, restricted as it is to a particular level of skill acquired at an early age and a limited number of occupational areas.
I do not believe that this is a sensible approach to our present-day needs, to say nothing of the rapidly changing future. The skill needs of traditional craft occupations change with technological development. Even where they do not, can we honestly claim that those skills can be acquired only through three to four years of time-serving? Furthermore, is it sensible that anyone who misses the boat at the very early age of 16 cannot later seek access to the apprenticeship system? It just does not make sense that entry to so many skilled jobs is barred to those who have not been through this highly specific form of training.
We need less rigid apprenticeship arrangements, with more flexibility in arrangements on age of entry, and also on the duration of apprenticeships. We need more importance given to the achievement of standards and less to timeserving. We need to extend and improve training arrangements outside the narrow field of apprenticeship, providing more opportunities for upgrading, converting or retraining adults for craft and technician occupations and giving more attention to the vocational preparation of young people who do not enter formal apprenticeships.
In this context I might mention, as my hon. Friend did, the timely report by the Central Policy Review Staff, published yesterday, entitled "Education, Training and Industrial Performance ". Like my hon. Friend, I have not yet had time to read the whole report, but I very much agree with much of the summary of its conclusions. There is an urgent need to loosen our training system not only to assist economic recovery, but to provide more opportunities for young people and adults to make the most of their talents.
I believe that those are our requirements, and that is the context in which the MSC is conducting its fundamental review of industrial training arrangements.

We are currently operating on the basis of the 1973 Employment and Training Act, which amended the 1964 Industrial Training Act. The review body is considering a range of possibilities,
I have already said that I do not think that this is the moment to predict the results of the review or to make guesses about the future of the industrial training boards. I ask my hon. Friend to be patient and await the report of the MSC's review, which is expected in July. However, I think that what I have already said makes it clear that the Government attach considerable importance to this review. We shall, as my hon. Friend requests, look very carefully at the recommendations which emerge. No options have been ruled out.
I am aware, from talking to people on both sides of industry about training, and from the mail that we receive as Ministers, that there is a wide spread of views about the industrial training boards—much support and many criticisms. The MSC review body has been busy collecting and collating evidence from a wide range of interests, and we can expect its report to summarise the views sent to it. I do not propose to dwell on those views and criticisms now, although I take careful note of those that my hon. Friend has reported to me about the system. I shall certainly see that the review team is made aware of the points made in the debate.
There are a number of general points that I should like to make, which bear on the review and its outcome. First, we need to look very closely at the cost-effectiveness of the present arrangements and their ability to deliver the more flexible training response required to meet the rapidly changing skill needs in the decade ahead. One of the key questions that the review body will naturally consider is how, if the review recommends their retention, ITBs should be funded. One possible option is that industry should once again pay the running costs of the boards through a levy. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that.
Another point that I should stress, as my hon. Friend did, is that some boards are doing extremely good work. If future proposals recommend the option of substantial changes, we must ensure that we do not lose the baby with the bath water.
There is a further point that underpins many of the issues being considered by the review body. It is that a system which is industry-based, like the ITB network, inevitably has some difficulty relating the needs of occupations common to more than one industry, and to the needs of local labour markets, which have very diverse characteristics. Of course, this is not a simple matter to resolve. Occupationally-based or geographically-based arrangements would present the same problems for the needs of industry sectors. Nevertheless, I mention it as one of the wider questions to which the review body must address itself, because, as I have already told the House, the flexibility of our training arrangements will be of critical importance in the years to come.
I assure the House that in restricting my remarks to the question of what our general training needs are I am not seeking to evade the points that my hon. Friend made. It is these general issues that the review body will be seeking to get right and that must provide the context for future decisions.
I very much welcome having had the opportunity to hear the detailed points that my hon. Friend has made, and I welcome such a thoughtful and considered contribution to the wider public debate about the future of our industrial training system. I share my hon. Friend's objective, which is for our training arrangements to meet in the most efficient way the needs of industry in the decade ahead. There are encouraging signs that important steps forward may be possible before too long. I look forward, with him, to seeing these developments reach fruition.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise before we adjourn for the short Whitsun Recess-although, looking around, I think that many of us seem to have adjourned already-the problems of the construction industry.
I very much appreciate the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who

has specific responsibility for the industry, among his many interests.
The construction industry is the greatest industry in the country, whether measured by manpower or output. Before I remind the House of some basic statistics, it may be prudent for me to declare an interest as an architect, a planning consultant and a non-executive director of a property company. About 1¼ million people are directly engaged in this huge industry. If we add the hundreds of thousands who produce materials or who provide services or manufacture equipment for the industry, we see that it is no exaggeration to say that we are talking about the livelihoods of almost one in 10 of the working population.
It may be appropriate to make a simple comparison. The 1¼ million compare with about ⅓ million full-time agricultural workers. One-third of a million is also the total number of people engaged in the vital industry of mining and quarrying. Even in the manufacture of all vehicles the figure is only about ¾ million.
Last year, the value of the construction industry's output was about £19,000 million-well over 10 per cent, of the gross domestic product, and well over twice the total gross output of agriculture, which was about £7,500 million.
What happened to this great industry during the 1970s must be a cause of deep concern to the whole House. While I shall be critical of both the Government and the industry, my criticisms of the Government could be levelled equally at successive Administrations.
In the past decade the number of construction workers has fallen from about 1½ million to 1¼ million. The latest figure that I have, received in answer to a question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment earlier this week, is 1,225,000 in Great Britain. This decrease of well over 250,000 in the last decade, put another way, means that construction workers have fallen in proportion from 6 per cent, to 4·8 per cent, of the total working population.
On the less happy note of unemployment, it is worth recording that unemployment in the industry has fluctuated wildly during the decade. It was only—


I use the word "only" advisedly-about 100,000 in 1973. In less than three years it grew to over 200,000 by 1976. The latest figure of which I am aware is 192,000, or about 13½ per cent, of the total jobless in Britain—and at a time when it is a very high figure. The figure of almost 200,000 is the highest of any industry. It has been persistently and consistently so and remains about three to four times the national average.
The value of the output, in historic figures, of this industry has risen considerably in the last 10 years, from about £5,200 million to an estimated £19,000 million last year. But these figures, at historic prices, conceal what was a modest increase in the real output of the industry up to about 1973, now regarded as a golden year. They conceal a massive fall in the industry's real output since then.
The simplest and easiest illustration is that in the first four years of the 1970s the difference between the increased value of the output of the construction industry, less inflation, was about plus 30 per cent. In the last six years, the figure, sadly, was about minus 30 per cent. It is obvious that the construction industry is a high-risk, insecure sector in which to earn a living. I call in aid the vast number of bankruptcies that take place among building and construction firms.
The Government are the largest client of the construction industry. The industry suffers when Governments find it necessary to cut back on their public sector capital expenditure programmes. It saddens me to have to say that public sector construction work has declined by about 15½ per cent, since 1973. Because there was a modest rise in the two years after 1973,1 reckon that the decline amounts to about 25 per cent, in the last four years. Under the Government's plans the programme will decline by another 3 per cent, this year, or by over 8 per cent, if the nationalised industries are excluded. These figures are taken from the most recent Government White Paper, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81 to 1983–84".
If the construction industry is suffering acute problems in its recession, these are magnified in the civil engineering sector, which has been badly hit. The

latest report of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, in its work load survey of last month, pinpoints yet again the continuing deterioration, with small firms being particularly badly hit.
The situation is not all doom and gloom, either in the public or the private sector. One buoyant part of the construction industry is the repairs and maintenance sector, which now represents over one-third of total output. Enterprising contracting firms have been looking overseas. There has been an increased contribution by British firms in the world's development programmes, not least in the Middle East. Even in this respect, however, there has been a substantial cutback in orders over the last year.
The best thing for the private sector would be a significant reduction in the record high interest rates. That will, one hopes, come in time. I wish to recognise the Government's achievements during their first year of office, for this vast industry. I refer to the changes made in the most recent Budget, in particular, to development land tax, the introduction of allowances for small workshops and industrial building allowances. Help has been given to many small firms. It should be remembered that the vast majority of building and contracting firms are small businesses—the Len Faircloughs of the industry.
I pay tribute to the Government also for abolishing office development permits, which were an unnecessary addendum to our planning legislation, and the partial abolition of industrial development certificates. I hope that the Government will practise what they preach. I look forward to much more speedy planning decisions. I am not saying that all applications should be passed, but it is clearly either right or wrong that a certain development should take place on a certain site. If it is wrong, the applicant should get a refusal. If it is right, he should get an acceptance. It makes the determination of an application no less right or wrong if the decision is delayed for months on end.
I welcome the Government's resolve to speed up the appeal procedures. I welcome especially some of the specific measures that have been put forward. I have less confidence that the Secretary of State will be successful in achieving a simplification of the building regulations.


As an architect with 20 years experience, I believe that the building regulations are unnecessarily cumbersome and comprehensive and that, in a sense, they have become self-defeating. They could be simplified without prejudicing safety on the site, the safety of materials or the security of people.
I welcome the initiative that the Government propose to take with regard to enterprise zones. I applaud all these attempts to try to minimise the bureaucracy of the construction industry. Compared with other countries, however, we take too long between the concept of a development project and the actual construction starting on site. I refer the Minister to a recent speech by Mr. Nigel Mobbs, chairman of Slough Estates, one of the leading development companies, who is also president of the British Property Federation. The research carried out by his company is worth close examination.
I understand fully that this great industry has far too little political clout in the corridors of power. In one sense, that is not its fault. In another, it is. Unfortunately, workers in the construction industry are evenly spread throughout the United Kingdom. There are no construction seats, as there are farming, car manufacturing and mining seats, waiting to be won or lost at the drop of an electoral threat or promise. Nevertheless, I believe that the construction industry has failed to promote itself as a political pressure group. Its disparate parts lack unity.
One is always making the comparison-perhaps now boring-between the political influence of the construction industry and the political influence of the farmers, under the umbrella of the National Farmers Union. I frequently make the point to the industry that farmers are different, unlike construction workers. There is a greater difference between the hill farmer in Cumbria, the crop-sprayer in Cambridgeshire and the dairy farmer in Cheshire than there is between an architect, a builder, a concreter and an engineer. Yet the farmers seem to unite under the umbrella of the NFU, which is a political force to be reckoned with, whereas those in the construction industry seem unable to unite to present a single voice in the corridors of power.

They can do much to promote themselves.
Another problem is that development is generally not popular. I have only to mention the recent developments in our countryside: the way that the town always seems to be encroaching on our green and pleasant land. Many people—I count myself a conservationist—rightly object to the replacement of some of our old buildings with modern ones that we do not like or which seem to be out of scale with their surroundings. Of course development disturbs the environment. We are all concerned about that.
Although I am a strong supporter of the conservation movement, I see a difference between protecting and conserving our great architectural heritage and preserving a mediocrity. We cannot accept that all parts of all our towns should be fixed in aspic and that there should be no new developments. The construction industry should do much more to promote this image.
If development is unpopular because of the noise of building and the disturbance to the environment, anyone operating a development should display a board on the site saying, for example. "This job is providing so many jobs for construction workers ", or "This building, when completed, will provide better working or living conditions for so many people ". Not least, such a board could say that the building would provide so many hundreds or thousands of pounds for the local rates, which will in turn be able to provide necessary services. I put those suggestions particularly, through the Minister, to the industry.
The Government have a crucial role to play in this great industry. I have said that the Government and their agencies are the largest clients of construction. The industry is a long-term investment sector and needs to plan well ahead. With the deepening recession that is embracing this industry, there has been a steady drift of skilled craftsmen from construction. Too few apprentices are being attracted into the industry.
Although one appreciates the reasons for not publishing the detailed analysis of capital expenditure on construction work beyond this year in the White Paper, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81 to 1983–84", the Government


should publish and stand by a reasonable minimum level of public sector construction work in the coming quinquennium.
I appreciate the political problem for successive Governments. With our recurring stop-go economic crises, it is politically much easier for Governments to cut capital programmes than to cut many current expenditure programmes. It is much easier to delay the building of a road by a year or two, or the building of a sewage works by three or four years, or to build fewer schools this year with the promise to build them next year, than it is to cut the maximum increase that the Government might want to give to retirement pensioners. So there is a political problem, but the Government must be courageous about capital investment programmes.
This hard-pressed industry wants to be reassured by the Minister that, in addition to a minimum level of guaranteed public sector work, in a smooth flow, so that they can plan ahead, there will be minimum bureaucracy—the Government have made a good start on that—speedier decisions on applications, whether relating to planning, building or fire regulations, and a plentiful supply of appropriate land for development.
In the last decade, urban developments have been eating far too much into our valuable agricultural land, while thousands of acres have been rotting, derelict, in our urban areas. I am glad of the new emphasis on promoting development in our inner city areas.
We need, above all, fair fiscal policies and a recognition that our economic regeneration depends upon adequate supplies of modern factories and other commercial buildings and an adequate infrastructure for those buildings, whether it be roads or public utilities.
To have such things is to make the best investment in the economy and therefore in Britain's future. It will also be the best vote of confidence that the House can give to our greatest industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) for raising this

issue. I congratulate him on his luck in the ballot. I was never so lucky in 10 years of trying. However, I hope that he does not use his luck too often on the day that we adjourn for the recess.
It is to my hon. Friend's credit that he chose to introduce a debate about the construction industry, which, as he rightly says, does not get as much attention as it should in this House. There is no denying the importance of the construction industry to the national economy. The industry had a total output of £19 billion in 1979, which represents about 11 per cent, of GDP and 20 per cent, of industrial output and is the largest employer of male labour in the country. It is an industry on which we all depend in one way or another.
My hon. Friend raised a number of points of concern to the industry and I will try to cover as many of them as I can in the time available. The main point on which he concentrated attention is the falling work load of the industry, which he says is occasioned by the Government through cuts in public expenditure.
Of course I entirely appreciate the fears my hon. Friend expresses about the prospects for the industry, but the Government must have regard above all to establishing a sound basis for national prosperity. This, as we all know, means halting the rate of inflation. To this end the Government have embarked on a policy of controlling the money supply. An essential and painful element of this is the need to rein in public expenditure. Only by reducing public borrowing will we get interest rates down and stimulate development.
Construction is, after all, the most pervasive industrial activity in the economy and, indeed, in most public spending programmes, and there is no way in which it can be insulated from these effects.
The alternative is more public expenditure, more inflation and, in the end, more State control—the inevitable results of Socialism. I am sure this is not the road down which the industry or my hon. Friend would want us to lead it. The only guarantee of the long-term prosperity and freedom of the construction industry is a sound economy.
The burden of my hon. Friend's criticism has been that in the process of


cutting public expenditure capital has borne a heavier share than current. He argues that successive Governments, in looking to reduce public expenditure, appear always to take the easy way out.
In this respect the Government are not behaving differently from any other body in similar circumstances. There are always continuing commitments to be met while capital investment can be postponed or cut back. Businesses operate in this fashion and households, too, are no different. One will occasionally put off buying a new washing machine. One cannot always put off repairing a pane of glass.
No one, therefore, should underestimate the difficulty of cutting expenditure in current terms. It is not easy, but we are grasping the nettle. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced only last week plans to reduce the size of the Civil Service by 75,000 over the next four years. In addition to the substantial start already made in my own Department we are giving positive encouragement to local authorities to root out waste and inefficiency and thereby cut back on their use of manpower wherever possible. It would therefore be to misunderstand our purpose if anyone were to claim that we have avoided the difficult questions.
We are of course aware that there are many areas that might benefit from additional spending on infrastructure either for expansion or replacement. We cannot at this stage afford to spend on these areas what we do not have. Only when the economy is on a sounder footing shall we be in a position to consider devoting a higher proportion of our resources to public expenditure in these areas.
As to my hon. Friend's plea for more information about the Government's forward spending plans, I cannot add anything to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction told him in reply to a question earlier this week. We cannot tell him any more than we said in the White Paper. Decisions have not yet been taken on allocations within the main programmes for the forward years. In any event, I wonder whether the figures are really as valuable as is often claimed. It is widely accepted that all Governments' forward spending plans are frequently subject to change. If I were taking decisions about the future of my company I should certainly

view them with caution.
It would be a mistake to paint quite such a gloomy picture for civil engineering as my hon. Friend has done. The figures certainly show that there has been a decline in recent years in some of the traditional areas such as road building—about which my hon. Friend knows a lot—as a major proportion of the motorway programme has reached completion. Also, there have been fewer schools to build as the country's population no longer grows at the previous pace.
I think, however, that it would be a mistake to concentrate solely on the decline in these areas and to ignore large programmes elsewhere in the public sector undertaken primarily by the nationalised industries—electricity, coal, gas and railways—which this year are likely to show an increase on construction spending over the previous year.
I was a little surprised at what my hon. Friend had to say about the falling number of apprentices coming into the industry. My information is that more new apprentices registered with the National Council for the Building Industry last year than in any year since 1975 and that this trend continued into the first quarter of this year. Nevertheless there is a decline taking place in the overall work load of the industry-a point on which my hon. Friend concentrated. The Government fully understand this and are concerned about the need to maintain an industry capable of responding to the nation's needs when the economy picks up.
Too often in the past we have seen that when that happens overheating takes place, because the industry is not ready. We are, therefore, determined to take whatever measures we consider necessary to facilitate development elsewhere in the economy. I would like to remind the House of some of the measures that we have taken to assist the construction industry in the 12 months since we assumed office.
We have taken steps to speed up the release of land for development. One cannot build unless the land is available, and the supply of land has been one of our first priorities. We have abolished the nonsensical arrangement whereby Crown and public land had first to be offered to public agencies. That is a


grossly irresponsible waste of time and a method of shuffling bits of bureaucratic paper from one Department to another and to local government as well.
We have put an end to the Community Land Act, along with the red tape, uncertainty, delay and high costs involved. We are taking powers to designate districts where land registers are to be compiled. On the housing front, we have asked all local authorities to co-operate with the house building organisations in taking the necesary steps to ensure that five years' supply of land for housing is always available.
We have taken action on several fronts to streamline and simplify the planning system and to speed the handling of applications, structure plans and so on. We cannot do without planning altogether, as my hon. Friend rightly said. Neither should we have to suffer a planning system that stifles initiative and prevents investment. I wish that planning committees would remember that the longer a planning application remains in the "In" tray someone else's money is being tied up, and not theirs.

Mr. Chapman: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. Some major planning applications cannot be compared with minor applications, and I understand that the Government have plans to exclude more minor developments from the need for planning application. I support that. Does my hon. Friend agree that since Parliament has laid down a statutory period for determining planning applications, namely, two months, it is incumbent upon all planning committees and staffs to see that a determination is given within the statutory two months' period in the vast majority of planning applications?

Mr. Finsberg: I certainly hope so. I also hope that developers were not under the impression that if they demanded a response in two months, and thereby forfeited deemed refusal, it would stand them in bad stead with that authority on another occasion. There is a feeling in the industry that a certain amount of blackmail is used occasionally. Where there is delay, and where developers feel that they are being subjected to delay unfairly, I hope, as my right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State said, that they will let us know. That is important. I would have thought from my experience in local government that in the bulk of cases there is no reason why decisions cannot be made within two months.
We have set in motion a review of the building control system, and the views of my hon. Friend are welcome and interesting. Office development permits have been abolished altogether and outside the assisted areas the threshold for industrial development certificates has been raised to 50,000 sq ft.
We are taking powers to regulate local authority direct labour organisations. The case for legislation on direct labour is overwhelming, and action is long overdue. There are endless examples of overspending and abuses within direct labour organisations—all at the ratepayers' expense. Those abuses are also at the expense of the private contractor, who often has to pick up the tabs in his extra share of the rates. Conractors also suffer because they are denied work by some councils merely to protect their direct labour organisations from competition.
Our proposals will ensure that DLOs have to win most of their work in fair competition and that they bear their proper share of overheads and earn a rate of return on capital employed. The days of phoney accounting, which we have seen too often, are over. We are determined to cut waste and inefficiency and to ensure that local authorities use contractors unless DLOs achieve the targets that we set them.
We are setting up enterprise zones in inner city areas. Surely that is one of the most exciting oportunities for development ever introduced by Government. We are stripping away bureaucracy and giving the private sector the opportunity to show what they can do when left to get on with the job.
In this context we are, of course, also establishing urban development corporations in London and on Merseyside. They will also provide a focus to attract investment from private sources and will take the lead in land reclamation and the provision of infrastructure to get things moving.
There are other measures that are of direct or indirect benefit to the industry. There are the 100 per cent, capital building allowance for small workshops, special measures to assist small firms, the encouragement of low-cost home ownership, and so on.
If anybody doubts our earnest of intent towards the construction industry, I suggest that he examines what we have achieved in 12 months. We have taken all the steps to facilitate development. Nobody can say that they are inconsiderable. I cannot offer an immediate prospect of an increase in public spending but we are creating an environment in which private in vestment will be encouraged and initiative rewarded, and in which there will be an opportunity for incentives to work.
It is not all grief and sorrow. I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that. We are creating the climate of opportunity. It is up to all concerned to grasp the opportunities and help to get the economy moving again.
I repeat that there are only two roads to follow. The first, to the left, drops ever more sharply until we fall into economic chaos and disaster. On the road that we, have chosen—to the right—opportunity is given a chance, initiative is encouraged, and money is again worth having and earning. The construction industry will have an opportunity to prove to the nation that its reputation is well deserved.

CHILDREN ACT 1975

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the question of the need to implement sections of the Children Act 1975. However, I am disappointed that it is necessary to raise the subject. I talk to directors of social services, social workers, representatives of adoption agencies, local authority representatives and justices of the peace. I am made aware that there is much anxiety because major sections of the Act have not been implemented. Since I made it known that I would try to raise the subject I have received letters from directors of social services, the British Association of Social Workers, the National Association of

Adoption Societies and Fostering Agencies, local authorities, the National Children's Bureau and justices of the peace, expressing concern that many sections of the Act have not been implemented.
It is worth recalling the history of the 1975 Act. It goes back to the 1960s, when there was major concern about adoption and pressure for an inquiry. The Houghton committee was set up as a result. My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) promoted a Private Member's Bill in the 1973–74 Parliament to deal with the matter. Eventually the provisions in the Bill were taken over by the Labour Party and a commitment was made in our manifesto. My right hon. Friend then piloted the 1975 Bill through Parliament. The measure commanded all-party support, and since 1975 each Secretary of State has expressed commitment to the Act and said that he intended to implement it. Perhaps it is a pity that my right hon. Friend moved from the Department soon after the Bill was passed. Perhaps there was not so much vigour in getting the Act implemented as there might have been had he remained in that office.
One must ask why, 10 years after the pressure built up, 25 major sections of the Act have not been brought into operation. The excuse is always that resources are not available. I fear that that excuse covers a lack of political will or commitment. I do not blame the present Government, because they have had only 12 months in office. The blame rests on both parties. The Labour Party had three years to implement the sections, so it must take at least as much, if not more, of the blame.
In 1975 it was said that the implementation of the sections of the Act would cost about £9 million. The cost might be as much as £14 million now. They might sound large sums, but for the Department of Health and Social Services they are petty cash. The Department would have to make the money available to the local authorities. The money involved is not much more than the cost of one and a half of the new Tornado multi-role combat aircraft which the Ministry of Defence is busy buying.
The £14 million is almost certainly the gross cost. Once the major provisions of the Act are working many children will


be taken out of expensive residential care, which can cost £100 a week for each child. If one tots up, one sees that after two or three years of full implementation about £10 million or £12 million could be saved. The net cost would probably be no more than £3 million or £4 million. The Government have no excuse for not implementing the remaining sections of the Act.
If they say today that they still cannot find the money, they have no excuse for not setting a clear timetable for implementation. No one is clear about how soon, if ever, the sections are to be implemented. It is difficult for local authorities and adoption agencies to plan. I hope that the Minister will give a clear timetable today or before the Summer Recess. The uncertainty is doing real damage to the service. The establishment of the adoption service is crucial. Many local authorities have established good working arrangements with adoption societies, but many others do not have a good working arrangement. Adoption societies are not clear what criteria the Government will demand. The cynic might say that the Government are waiting until the voluntary adoption societies disappear altogether. About 30 have closed in recent years.
The British Association of Social Workers makes the point clearly. It states:
The principal purpose of the Act was to introduce a comprehensive adoption service which appears to be no nearer now than it was in 1975. In fact the situation now is worse perhaps than in 1975. Firstly, because of the confusion that has been caused among adoption agencies due to the failure to issue regulations. It is worth noting that some 30 adoption agencies have closed during the 1970s and the confusion has also led to continuing problems for other agencies. Secondly, a comprehensive adoption service is an essential ingredient for the introduction of other aspects of the Act, such as prohibition of third party placements and the provisions for freeing children for adoption.
Anybody who served on the Standing Committee in 1975 can remember horrifying accounts of some of the third party placings. It is a scandal that that aspect of the Act has not been implemented. Because of the uncertainty, the situation is worse than if there were no Act.
The whole reason for the section on adoption was based on evidence gathered in 1968–69 of the large numbers of children

awaiting adoption. The children in that survey are now grown up. It is clear that many children who are caught in residential homes could be placed in homes and adopted if the Act were implemented. Many children are waiting for families and parents. There is a major need for that section to be implemented as soon as possible.
I turn to the question of payments to adopters. The matter was argued hotly in Committee. Many children, particularly teenagers, would like to be adopted because they feel that there is more security in being an adopted child than a fostered child. However, families that foster often have limited financial resources.
Families do not change from fostering children to adopting children because of the cost involved. They cannot afford to bear the burden of the full cost of bringing up the children. A provision was included in the Act that payments could be made to adopters by local authorities. That is one of the sections that will not cost anything. At present, local authorities pay a boarding out allowance. If they allowed the foster parents to become adoptive parents they would not be asked to pay any more, and I suspect that in most instances the foster parents would be happy with some reduction in the payment, provided that they had some financial help. That is one of the areas where there is no excuse for the Government not taking action.
I turn to the question of custody. Again, the Act set out the establishment of new provisions not only for adoption or fostering but for custody. Play was made of the fact that that provision would have many attractions when families split up, and one or other, or both, of the parents remarried. There are often difficulties if a father who loses the legal custody of the child is reluctant to see the new stepfather adopt the child. The idea was that custody provisions would make better arrangements for the child, giving it much more security. They would give those looking after the child the security of the knowledge that the decisions that they were taking, and wanted to enforce, could not be undermined by somebody else who disagreed with them. At the same time, the provisions left some minor rights to the original parents.
Why have the Government not implemented that provision? The first report to Parliament on the working of the Act sets out the parts of the Act that have been implemented, but it devotes a large section to apologies from the Government about why so much of the Act has not been implemented. On the question of custody, the report indicates that the problem was the cost of the local authority preparing reports for custody proceedings. The local authority already has to prepare reports on the children, for one reason or another. It would simply be a question of the reports that are now being used for one purpose being used for a different purpose. It is not good enough for the Government to say that any real cost is involved.
We spent a great deal of time in Committee on the question of guardian ad litem. Strong arguments were put forward about the need to appoint someone to look after the interests of the child. I agree that that section would involve certain costs, but if we want justice in the courts there is a strong argument for bringing that provision into operation as soon as possible.
On the question of reviewing children in care, evidence about children who waited for long periods in residential homes showed that, unfortunately, the social work department tended to forget about individual children. The cynics suggested that if a child was not causing a nuisance in a children's home it could stay there for a long period without its case being reviewed. I am sure that the practice in most social work departments has improved considerably and that the number of children who have been forgotten has been reduced, but I still feel that, in some departments, children remain in residential homes because no one reviews their cases. The Act provides for a regular review of children in care. A conference that involves all those concerned with the care of those children should take place regularly. It is one of those pieces of good practice that should have legislative backing.
The final section to which I wish to draw attention is that dealing with legal aid for parents involved in care proceedings, especially where the parents object

to the proceedings. It is unfortunate that although the child can be represented in court, and the local authority almost certainly has legal representation present, parents cannot obtain legal aid. If they are on low incomes, they find it difficult to present their case fairly to the courts. It is a matter of natural justice that that provision of the Act should be implemented.
The Government should grasp the nettle and say "Yes, it will cost us money—or it will cost the local authorities money—but it will be a good investment". Once the scheme is in operation, the cost to the taxpayer will be small. In terms of human happiness and future generations of children, such money would be extremely well spent.
I do not wish to spend too much time on the question of costs. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the high costs of dealing with disturbed teenagers, especially those who get into trouble with the law, and those adults who are disturbed, and are often anti-social. If the Minister begins to think in terms of those costs, he will realise that the Government will make a profit by implementing the Act, rather than lose money by doing so.
I do not expect the Minister to announce today that he will implement the Act tomorrow. My strong plea—and one that would come from all those concerned about the problem—is that we must have a clear timetable commitment from the Government of when the sections will be implemented, especially those concerning regulations for adoption societies. I hope that he will give an assurance that the regulations that he intends to make will be published soon, so that people are aware of what is involved. If they have to wait for a few months, or a few years, before all the regulations are implemented, there should be at least a timetable, a plan and a programme, of which they are aware.
In a parliamentary answer the Minister said that he had had further discussions about costs with the local authorities. I understand that some experiments have been undertaken in Newcastle and other areas, on behalf of the Department, with regard to costing. I hope that the Minister will give more information about those experiments.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for giving me the opportunity to give a full account of the Government's position on the implementation of the Children Act 1975. The hon. Gentleman's interest in that area is well known in the House. In the previous Parliament we worked together on that subject, and since I became a Minister at the Department I have taken a deep interest in the subject. I assure him that there is no lack of political will or commitment on the part of Ministers. We strongly support the main aims of the Act and wish to see progress in its implementation.
The Act is an important piece of legislation, designed primarily to improve planning for children who need long-term substitute families. It make major changes in adoption law—including the requirement for an adoption service to be provided in each local authority's area—extends the scope of custody law to include people other than a child's parents, and includes important provisions relating to other aspects of child care. We recognise that full implementation of the Act would bring important developments in child care services and facilitate improvements, which are already taking place. I fully share the hon. Member's disappointment that more of the Act's provisions have not been implemented.
It is now five years since the Children Act was approved by Parliament and I can well understand the frustration felt by many people that so much of it has not been brought into force. The hon. Member suggested towards the end of his speech that we might make a profit or that local authorities could save millions of pounds by shutting some of their community homes for children and making more use of fostering and intermediate treatment. I am all in favour of moves in that direction, as I have made clear on many occasions. However, the position is not quite as simple as the hon. Member implies, because the alternative fostering and community-based services have to be built up before the institutions can be run down, so that in the short

term, unhappily, costs can go up rather than down.
The main responsibility for operating the Act's provisions will fall on local authorities, but there are resource implications for the probation service, the courts and the legal aid fund, as well as for the Government. The previous Administration recognised that the necessary manpower and other resources would have to be available for the Act's provisions to be given effect, and agreed with the local authorities that implementation of the Act would be phased as resources permitted. We, too, recognise that successful implementation of the remaining provisions will require careful planning and adequate resources.
I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that it would be irresponsible to implement legislation if the resources were not available to make it effective. I have to be frank and say that, in the present economic circumstances, resources for the full implementation of the Act are unlikely to be available for a number of years. None the less, I do not want to give the impression that no progress can be made. I assure the hon. Member that the Government are not, as some people would suggest, dragging their feet over further implementation of the 1975 Act. On the contrary, we are determined to make as much headway as we can, and we have taken positive steps to achieve that aim.
A joint working party of the DHSS and the Welsh Office and local authorities has been looking at the costs of the Act's unimplemented provisions. Discussions in the past, as I think the hon. Member knows, about further implementation have been hampered by the lack of information and agreement about the costs—or, indeed, savings—involved.
The costing working party's report will provide a firm basis for discussions about bringing more provisions into force. I hope to receive this report within a month or two, and I shall then open discussions with the local authorities and other interested parties about the scope for introducing further provisions of the Act. My aim will be the speediest introduction of any provisions which the costing working party identifies as needing no extra resources.
It would be idle for me to speculate about which provisions might be capable of implementation within existing local authority and other resources. I do not want to raise false hopes; nor, indeed, to dampen hopes unnecessarily. No decisions have yet been made about bringing more of the Act into force. This has to await the costing working party's report.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it the Minister's intention to publish that report?

Sir G. Young: I shall write to the hon. Member about that. My own instant reaction would be to say "Yes", but I am not entirely aware of the conditions under which the working party was set up. Perhaps I could write to him about that, but assure him that I can see no reason why the report should not be made available.
I assure the House that I am fully aware of the benefits which should flow from the Act's provisions. Many provisions will be of direct benefit to children, and I shall not permit any unnecessary delay in bringing such provisions into force. I am thinking here of provisions such as those that will enable local authorities and voluntary adoption societies to apply for orders freeing children for adoption, and those that will permit the setting up of pilot schemes, approved by the Secretary of State, for the payment of allowances to adopters.
Freeing for adoption is a procedure which local authorities and voluntary adoption societies will be able to use to assist them in better and more confident planning for children who need new families. The freeing procedure will enable parents who wish to have their child adopted to give early final agreement to adoption, and this should smooth the adoption process for all concerned. It will be possible to make firm plans for the child, and the distress and the uncertainty which both parents and adopters can experience should be reduced.
Local authorities and voluntary adoption societies will also be able to apply to the courts for freeing orders without the parent's consent. Courts will be able to make a freeing order if they consider that this would be in the child's best interests and that one of the statutory grounds for

dispensing with the parent's agreement to adoption is satisfied.
It was hoped, when the Children Bill was being discussed by Parliament, that this latter possibility—of a child being freed for adoption without, if necessary, the parent's consent—would assist in those cases where children are drifting in the care of a local authority or a voluntary organisation, with no possibility of returning to their natural families, but, perhaps because of the opposition of parents, with no permanent plans being made for their future. I know that many local authorities and voluntary adoption societies would welcome the introduction of the. freeing provisions to help them in proper planning for children.
The provision for the Secretary of State to approve schemes for the payment of allowances to adopters—which the hon. Member mentioned—should also facilitate the finding of families for children who need them. This provision was included in the Act because it had been suggested that the payment of allowances would enable adoptive homes to be found for children who, because of their special needs, would not otherwise be adopted. The children concerned are handicapped, or are groups of brothers and sisters who need a home together, or who have some other special need which could mean that, although people might want to adopt these children, the financial burden which this might involve would be too great.
Parliament considered that only a limited number of adoption allowance schemes should be approved at first, so that these could be carefully monitored to see whether the payment of allowances did indeed facilitate the adoption of children with special needs. The Secretary of State will have to report to Parliament on the operation of the allowance schemes that he approves, and Parliament will have the opportunity to decide whether his powers to approve schemes should continue.
I think that this opportunity to review the operation of the provision is important. Parliament will wish to take stock of a development that in many ways cuts across traditional assumptions about adoption. Clearly it is desirable for pilot schemes to be got under way, so that we can assess the effectiveness of


paying allowances to adopters in helping to find homes for children who need them.
I could talk in similar terms about the benefits that we hope will flow from other of the Act's provisions. Many hon. Members are already fully aware of these. This is why we are constantly urged by hon. Members and others to implement more sections of the Act. I need no converting to an appreciation of the Act's potential value for children and their natural and substitute families. As I have said, I hope that the costing working party's report will provide an agreed framework for discussions about the un-implemented provisions of the Act and will enable us to make firm decisions about bringing more of it into force.
A second working party is also doing valuable groundwork for further implementation of the 1975 Act. This working party is considering the criteria and procedures for approval of voluntary adoption societies by the Secretary of State. The Act provides for the replacement of the present system, whereby voluntary adoption societies are registered by local authorities, by one under which societies are approved by the Secretary of State for three years at a time. This change was thought necessary to ensure that societies' standards of practice and the conduct of their activities were satisfactory for the important role that they will play in the statutory adoption service, and in the light of the new responsibilities that they will have under the Act—such as the opportunity to apply to have a child freed for adoption.
This requirement for the Secretary of State to approve them had made voluntary adoption societies concerned about their future and, through the Association of British Adoption and Fostering Agencies, they have told me that they would welcome clarification of the criteria that the Secretary of State will apply to societies seeking approval. They have also stressed the need, which I readily accept, to encourage and maintain the voluntary contribution to adoption services, and to facilitate the co-operation which is already developing between statutory and voluntary agencies in the provision of adoption services.
We therefore decided that a working party should be set up to consider the

criteria and procedures for approval of voluntary adoption societies, and this working party, on which the local authorities, voluntary adoption societies, and the Association of British Adoption and Fostering Agencies are represented, is now well into its task. I hope to have its report by this autumn. I shall bear exactly the same considerations in mind when it comes to publication.
The completion of the working party's task will in itself be valuable, because it will help to dispel the uncertainty currently faced by voluntary adoption societies about what the approval process will entail. The working party's labours will, of course, also be valuable in laying the foundation for implementation of the approval provisions.
The working party is doing essential preliminary work, which has to be completed before the approval provisions can be brought into force. That this work is being done now will bring the introduction of approval that much nearer. Of course we will have to wait to see what the costing working party says about the costs of introducing the approval provisions, but if they are identified as needing no extra resources and we can agree with all concerned that they can be brought into force, the approval working party will have considerably shortened the time needed to prepare for their implementation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the custodianship order provisions. The previous Adminstration announced that preparatory work for their introduction would be undertaken with a view to implementation early this year. I know that many of those who are caring for other people's children, including stepparents and relatives and foster parents, would welcome the introduction of the custodianship provisions, so that they have the opportunity to establish a secure legal relationship between themselves and the child.
Unhappily we were not able to press ahead with bringing these provisions into force, because there were no agreed figures on the costs of the provisions. The custodianship order provisions will have resource implications for local authorities-although the hon. Gentleman does not agree with this-the probation service, the courts, and the legal aid fund,


although views have been divided on the question whether the provisions will lead to increased costs overall.
Again, this lack of agreement about costs bedevilled progress. We therefore asked the costing working party, which was not originally looking at the custodianship provisions, to include these in its considerations. This means that we shall soon have a clear picture of the costs involved, and will be able to consider on that basis whether there is scope for bringing the custodianship provisions into force.
We have received a number of representations about sections 64 and 65 of the Act. Those sections provide for courts to order that parents and children shall be separately represented in care proceedings and that where there appears to be a conflict of interest between them, for the children's interests to be watched over by a guardian ad litem, and for parents to be eligible for legal aid. At present, because of their resource implications, those sections have been introduced only for a very limited group of cases, and many people think that the non-availability of legal aid for parents in care proceedings—which may result in the removal of their child—is a denial of justice.
The matter was debated fully in the other place on 30 April and I do not wish to devote too much time to it today. However, I should like to repeat the assurance that my noble Friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne gave on that occasion, namely, that the Government fully accept the desirability of such provisions. As soon as resources permit, the Lord Chancellor would like to make legal aid available to parents who wish to be represented. The provision of guardians ad litem is being looked at, along with the other provisions that have resource implications for local authorities.
I have said that lack of money need not mean that progress cannot be made in bringing into force more of the Children Act 1975. I have outlined the positive steps that we are taking to identify areas where we can make some headway. It is, of course, for central Government to bring provisions into force, and until we have done so local authorities and others obviously cannot set about putting them

into effect. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume that progress is possible only when a commencement order has been made.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman, because he said that the present position was worse than that prior to 1975. Much of the Act is about developments in child care practice and is designed to set a legislative framework within which good practice can develop and flourish. We must not forget that good practice can flourish without all the legislative underpinning that might be desirable. Reviews of children in care, for example, constitute one area where good practice can be invaluable to proper planning for children in care, and the development of good practice need not await the making of review regulations under the provisions of the Children Act.
Equally, in our mutual regret about some of the unimplemented provisions of the Children Act, we should not overlook the very valuable work that is already being done by both statutory and voluntary agencies. Many voluntary adoption societies, for example, are doing innovative and successful work in placing children with very severe handicaps and other special needs with new adoptive families.
I am thinking of agencies such as Parents for Children, which was set up specifically to find homes for such children and which, in its first three years of operation, has placed 37 children with new families. Those children were over 8 years of age, or had a physical or mental handicap of some kind, or were family groups of young children needing to stay together. Many hon. Members will have heard about the exciting new scheme that the Adoption Resource Exchange has recently launched to find families for children through the use of the "Be My Parent" book, which contains photographs of children who need new homes. I am glad to say that the Government make grants to both those organisations to help with their excellent work.
We also support the Association of British Adoption and Fostering Agencies, which does such valuable work in promoting high standards of practice in the adoption and fostering of children and in


improving professional and public understanding of all the complex issues involved. The willingness of so many families to take children with severe handicaps or other special needs into their homes is one of the most heartening of all the developments in the field for which I am responsible. I am sure that hon. Members would wish to join with me in paying tribute to the families who have welcomed those children into their homes.
Inter-agency co-operation is another area in which encouraging progress is being made. Co-operation between many voluntary adoption societies and local authorities is already very good, and getting better, despite the fact that section 1 of the Act—which places a duty on local authorities to provide adoption services in conjunction with voluntary adoption societies in their area—is not yet in force. The adoption development project, sponsored by the DHSS social work service in Bedfordshire and Newcastle, has demonstrated that progress can be made in inter-agency co-operation without the full statutory framework. I am not minimising the need to implement more of the Act, but we should not let this be used as an excuse to justify lack of initiative or commitment to improvements in services.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will have hoped for a definite commitment from me about bringing into force further provisions of the Act. He will have hoped for—although perhaps not expected—implementation dates or a timetable for implementation. He has, I am afraid, raised this subject at a time when I can be no more definite than I have been. We support the main aims of the Act. We hope to make progress in its implementation and we have set in train an examination of the Act's resource implications that will enable us to consider, with the local authorities and others, the timing and priorities for bringing further provisions into force. I hope that by the autumn we shall have a much clearer picture of the. scope for further implementation of the Children Act.

VIOLENCE ON LONDON TRANSPORT

1 pm

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to violence on London Transport. In February 1975 I initiated a similar debate on the same subject. It is a grim comment on life in our capital city that five years later the level of violence is considerably higher and public concern is many times greater. Not long ago British newspapers were full of details of muggings on the New York Underground. It is now our capital that attracts attention for violence on public transport; it is now our city where people fear to ride on trains and buses late at night; it is our constituents, families and friends who are assaulted on our public transport.
We saw the disgraceful scenes that preceded, accompanied and succeeded the England-Scotland football match at Wembley last year. We saw the incidents at Southgate station and Finsbury Park, and the recent violent death on the District Line. Above all, we saw the battle at Neasden-a riot that was a frightening example and warning, and most of those involved were under 14. On that grim Saturday night 200 teenagers fought each other and the London Transport staff, wrecked a train and injured the driver. The Sunday Telegraph reported:
 There was blood on the pavement where hundreds had fought the night before.
The Daily Express reported:
 Punks, Teds and skinheads are increasingly a hazard for late-night travellers … The ' battle ' in Neasden was the worst in a long line of incidents.
I quote from an editorial in The Daily Telegraph:
 Rising violence on the Underground is no more than a reflection on the increase in violence in Britain generally. But the nature of the Underground system, with its staff shortages, unpoliced trains, unattended stations and long, cavernous passages gives great scope for criminal elements to prey on victims undetected.
What are the facts and figures behind such press coverage?
Of course, most of the 6 million passengers who travel on London Transport buses and trains each day do so without witnessing unruly or dangerous behaviour of any kind, but last year 2,000 people


were attacked on London Transport. That is an average of more than five each day. This year's figure is expected to be higher.
Those who run our transport system perform a vital service, but they have become the obvious targets for delinquents, drunks, thugs and morons. Five years ago there were 270 assaults on London Transport rail staff. Last year there were 369. Five years ago there were 986 assaults on bus staff. Last year there were 1,169. Of all the assaults on the Underground in 1979, 11 per cent, were by individuals under 17; 73 per cent, by individuals in the 18–21 age group; and 9 per cent, by those in the 22–30 age group.
I was horrified to be told that the worst period of the day for assaults on bus staff was between 3.30 and 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday, when children come out of school. What a chilling indictment of life in London in 1980!
Let me tell the House of two cases of assault brought to my attention by the Transport and General Workers Union, which has been discussing these matters with various Home Secretaries since 1966. A woman conductor aged 56 was sexually assaulted, knocked down and kicked unconscious. The assailants were not found. In another case, a 32-year-old conductor was attacked from behind, kicked and punched, dragged off his bus and thrown through a shop window. Three men were apprehended, and they appeared in court One was cleared of the charge. The other two—believe it or not—received suspended sentences of six mouths' imprisonment.
What can and must be done? I am delighted to find widespread agreement among all concerned about the way forward. It is appropriate to start with penalties. I quote from a Transport and General Workers Union report:
 Bus crews have had their morale impaired and are increasingly disturbed by what they regard as leniency on the part of the courts … Fines and probation have no real deterrent effect in their eyes. The scale of injuries has reached alarming proportions, from bleeding noses to fractured jaws and from broken arms and damaged eyes to murder.
I congratulate the unions on what they do to alert us all to what has been done to their members. For my part, I tell the Minister bluntly that I am appalled by the light sentences being given when the

culprit is caught-and it is very rarely that he is caught.
From about 100 cases examined by one union, there were only 13 known prosecutions. The great British public has a great British capacity for looking the other way. In many cases, the attacker never goes to prison. He should go—rather than women who run suburban brothels. In a few cases, the criminal is out of prison before the bus conductor or driver is out of hospital.
Does the Home Secretary consider that the maximum penalty for the offence of assault is sufficient, in view of the recent recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee? If not—and I understand that he does not—when will he do something about it?
I appreciate that magistrates must have discretion, but has not the Lord Chancellor sent out a letter recently on the need for sentences that will provide a respectable deterrent? Are the magistrates too bound up in their own administrative regulations? Should an assault on a uniformed transport worker be regarded as more serious than common assault, as many transport authorities would like? I can see many problems arising from such a proposal.
Have the courts the required armoury of penalties? Can the Minister confirm that parents can, and frequently should, be bound over for the good behaviour of their children? After all, why should a parent allow a 14-year-old boy or girl to be in a disco at 11.30 pm? How often are the parents forced, as they can be, to pay fines imposed on their children? What is to be done to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969?
I turn to the matter of special equipment. Much has been done. There is much more to do. Nearly all buses now have emergency hooters. About 2,800 buses out of 5,000 have two-way radios. Five years ago only 300 buses were so equipped. They need more radio channels. Perhaps we could be told whether they will get them.
On the Underground, there is a requirement for wider use of closed-circuit television surveillance, strengthened windscreens in cabs, and perhaps more assault-proof ticket-collecting booths, for 77 assaults in 1979 were against ticket collectors.


I am a little more cautious in asking for more ticket-collecting booths after hearing yesterday of a case in New York where the ticket collector did have a booth—a wooden one—and it was set on fire with him inside it. There should be separate cabs for guards and special locks on all cab doors.
Following the Neasden riots, there has been public discussion of the best way of policing the Underground. The London Transport division of the British Transport police is responsible for policing about 250 miles of track and 280 stations, as well as other LT installations. It has been agreed that their numbers should be increased from about 175 to 500—a remarkable comment, in itself, on the size of the problem. I learnt this morning that that increase was first suggested more than four years ago. Even such an increase would not provide a police presence throughout the extensive network and it is hoped to improve their internal and external communications.
London Transport claims that the cooperation received from the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police has been excellent. Since members of both forces were given free travel on buses and Underground trains, whether on or off duty, they have made about 10 arrests a month and have a strong deterrent effect on vandals and hooligans. The Essex and Thames Valley forces are to be given the same concessions.
Perhaps I could mention, in passing, that substantially more than 20,000 light bulbs are destroyed by vandals each year, along with about 1,000 fire extinguishers. Vandalism is costing London Transport more than £1 million a year, and the bill is met by the travelling public.
In a debate on London on 2 May, a case was made for making the Metropolitan Police fully responsible for policing the Underground. Having listened to all the arguments, I am not convinced that that would be wise. The city forces in New York and Paris have special divisions patrolling the railway system. About 15 per cent, of London Transport's activities take place outside the Metropolitan Police boundary. The special patrol group can be, and frequently is, called in. At Neasden, contrary to press reports, the Metropolitan Police took only eight minutes to arrive.
Apart from the obvious injuries to the crews, assaults that take place on buses lead to a loss of mileage and gaps in services. Many of those in my constituency who curse London Transport for not supplying a bus on schedule late at night are unaware that the reason is that the driver or the conductor has been beaten up further along the route.
Assaults turn the travelling public away from public transport and encourage experienced drivers to leave London Transport. I was staggered to learn that London Transport believes that violence is costing it £½ million a month in lost revenue-another indication of the size of the problem.
I congratulate the Government on organising a recent conference on violence on public transport. By all accounts, it was a great success and a useful exercise in co-ordination.
Having initiated 10 Adjournment debates while I have been an hon. Member, I know that Ministers are sent along on such occasions to comment and not to commit, but I, the House and Londoners want to know whether the Home Secretary has persuaded the Treasury, following the conference to' which I have referred, to give more financial support to London Transport.
Specifically, £3 million a year is needed to pay for the extra British Transport police and between £30 million and £40 million is needed over the next three or four years for equipment such as radios, closed-circuit television and alarm systems. Even if, as I hope, the money is forthcoming, it will take many months to make progress. Without it, the position will rapidly get worse.
I was told this morning that to advertise for, recruit and train the new police would take at least six months. I hope that we shall hear from my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, for whose presence I am most grateful, what conclusions have been reached since the conference, which took place several weeks ago.
I hope that containing violence on public transport is one of the few fronts in the fight against crime where progress can be ma de. Undoubtedly, one of the most common causes of assault is poor


service. Improving services is surely one measure that will have the support of transport authorities, transport workers and the travelling public.
Better training of transport staff in the way in which they handle the public would improve services and reduce the number of assaults on staff. Friendly, smiling staff will do more to prevent violence than any number of cold electronic eyes.
Even with all London Transport's much publicised problems, no major urban transport authority has a better all-round performance. It is not for nothing that country after country sends teams to 55 Broadway to learn how the job should be done.
Justified fears have been aroused by the violence on London Transport. I have made some suggestions about the way forward. Naturally, the country looks to the Government, who were elected on a strong law-and-order platform, to prove by deeds that they not only care but know, first, how to contain the rising violence on public transport and then how to reduce it. Let us have action this day.

The parliamentary secretary to the ministry of Transprot (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for giving us the opportunity to talk about this very important matter.
Violence on London Transport is only one manifestation of the increasing level of violent behaviour that appears to be endemic in our society as a whole. It is a serious part of that problem, and one that is getting worse.
The problem of violence on transport is not confined to London. Unfortunately, it occurs throughout British Rail's national network and on many municipal bus undertakings in particular. However, the problem in London is much more serious than anywhere else.
My hon. Friend referred to the recent figures. I can give precise figures. In 1979, 2,252 offences of violence on London Transport services were reported to the British Transport police. Of that total, 1,827 were assaults on staff.
We must keep the matter in proportion. Fortunately, immense numbers of people travel on London Transport each day without encountering or even seeing any signs of violence or difficulty. Nevertheless, on the Underground, and more particularly on the buses, far too much trouble is occurring and far too much lawlessness is being experienced.
The problem is not one to which the Government have suddenly had their attention drawn or which they have suddenly noticed. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport met representatives of the railway unions and the chairman of the London Transport Executive last October. It was following those meetings that the Ministers involved agreed to hold the working conference to which my hon. Friend referred.
The conference was held on 6 May. Even since the meetings last October there have been further serious outbreaks of violence, particularly at Neasden, Fins-bury Park and, I believe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who is beside me on the Front Bench today.
The working conference was chaired by Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport—in particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who is also present. It was attended by representatives of the operators and trade unions involved, the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport police and other interested organisations, including those representing transport users. I am glad to be able to say that it seems to be agreed by all those who took part in the conference that it was a success and that it would prove a useful way of preparing for action that would lead to improvements.
In addition to congratulating all who took part, I should like to pay credit to the leaders of the rail unions, who announced at the conference that they would withdraw their industrial action on the Underground to allow time to follow up the implementation of the practical measures recommended at the conference. That underlines that the conference was a success. The rail unions represent the staff in the front line of this difficulty.
The first matters to be examined are the causes and types of violence occurring on London Transport and other public transport systems to see whether anything can be done to minimise the risk, before going on to deal with the violence that is occurring. The hard core of the trouble arises out of hooliganism and some particularly difficult and unpleasant people who make themselves passengers on the public transport system. It must not be overlooked that there is a duty on the ordinary passenger and the ordinary member of the staff to behave properly. In dealing with the hard core, we must not ignore the fact that there is a great deal of avoidable violence involving people who should be ordinary law-abiding passengers.
I am sure that all members of the public, including ourselves, have experienced anger about delays, fare levels and cancellations of trains in and around London, and that can never be an excuse for incidents or disagreements giving rise to violence. It is, however, an unfortunate fact that belligerent passengers, annoyed about delays, cancellations or fare levels, are a major source of assaults on staff. The ordinary member of the public should confine his anger and behave in a more civilised fashion. Bus and train crews can sometimes be unco-operative and unwittingly provoke passengers to anger. There is a need for better training of staff to cope more diplomatically with members of the public in difficult situations.
I turn now to the hard-core problem of the hooligan element on trains, which gives rise to so much concern. Over-consumption of alcohol is a major cause of violence, especially among the young. That is a matter to which we must give attention in relation to public transport.
We also need to look at particular occasions that give rise to the risk of violence, particularly football matches, when large groups of people, predisposed to excitable and violent behaviour, use the transport system. Various measures are being considered by the transport operators and the Football Association to try to reduce the problems associated with football matches.
The England v. Scotland football match has given rise to trouble in the past. We are discussing the possibility of a change of date from the bank holiday

weekend in 1981 and also considering the movement of special football trains direct to Wembley, thereby avoiding central London stations. I am sure that ordinary members of the public, who, like myself, usually travel to football matches at Wembley by the Underground, will not complain of any inconvenience and will welcome the fact that a small number of troublesome people in the crowd can be segregated from the ordinary traffic.
A number of transport operators, particularly in London, are going ahead with other physical measures to help control violence and crime. London Transport is using closed circuit television on Northern and Bakerloo line stations and hopes to extend the system over much more of the network. This is obviously expensive. The cost of equipping the entire network is estimated at £30 million to £40 million, spread over three or four years. London Transport is also increasing the number of buses equipped with radio. Trains on the Bakerloo line are already equipped with radios connected to the police and there are plans to extend the system.
Members of the British Transport police are equipped with personal radios, as they work above ground. London Transport is developing a National Coal Board system designed to function satisfactorily underground. Other technical aids either being used or considered by London Transport include a 999 telephone system, office alarms for use by ticket collectors, public address systems, assault warning alarms and plastic anti-assault screens in buses.
If violence breaks out, it is essential that an effective police presence is provided as quickly as possible. The House will share my admiration of the efforts being made by the British Transport police and the Metropolitan Police, often with limited resources, to control crime on London Transport. There have been criticisms from time to time, for instance, about the liaison between the British Transport police and the Metropolitan Police and about their speed of response to incidents. But, as my hon. Friend said, in the case of the Neasden incident, those criticisms turned out to be unfounded. The police were on the scene within 10 minutes of the alarm being given.
On the whole, those criticisms are unjustified. At the moment, we are satisfied that no case has been made for transferring the responsibilities of the British Transport police for policing the Underground system to the already heavily burdened Metropolitan Police.
However, the BTP presence on London Transport is below its existing authorised establishment, which itself may not be enough to cope with the crime problem that now exists on London Transport facilities. We must therefore deal with that problem, but also, where necessary, ensure that liaison between the two forces remains as close as possible so as to create the conditions in which the BTP can discharge its responsibilities more effectively.
Most of these matters were discussed at the conference that I mentioned and their implementation will be for the operators and the unions. However, all concerned, including the Government, agree that there is a need to keep up the momentum and to ensure that the impetus given to the control of violence on public transport in London and elsewhere is not lost.
We are anxious that, where it is within the limits of what is practicable, lack of resources should not prevent the implementation of desirable measures in a reasonable time. The Minister of Transport has therefore already said that, despite present restraints on public expenditure, the Government are interested in the development of proposals by British Rail to set up mobile groups of British Transport police as intervention squads where serious problems occur.
I understand that British Rail proposes to establish mobile units of BTP in London and the principal cities, whose main duties will be to combat late night violence on public transport, to give a swift response to calls for assistance from both the public and other police officers, to augment routine police patrols, to patrol potential or known trouble spots and to assist in the control of football supporters and in special duties relating to the maintenance of public order at demonstrations and other large gatherings involving public transport.
Similarly, London Transport has proposals to increase the establishment of the British Transport police, who police

the London Transport system. It has already announced plans to increase the force covering those services from the present 146 officers to 198, but it has said that eventually it would like the size of the force increased to between 400 and 500. The Minister will consider what additional resources might be required for that purpose and the others that I have mentioned and he will see how they might be made available.
As I have said, some of the proposals by London Transport—such as the installation of closed circuit television on stations—will require considerable capital expenditure and will therefore take some time to implement. But my Department and the Home Office will consider all these matters in the light of the resources available, both for London Transport in London and for law and order generally, over the next few years.
The Government, particularly through the Home Office, will also be taking steps to ensure that the law allows offenders, particularly young offenders, to be dealt with effectively. My hon. Friend was right, I am sure, to say that many of the public and staff of the transport network are concerned about the problem.
My Department is urgently considering with other Departments a draft bye-law submitted by the British Railways Board to control the bringing of alcohol on to specified trains.
On the wider question of offenders and penalties, the provision of attendance centres for juveniles aged under 17 is being increased and new centres for boys aged 17 to 20 are to be opened this year. A more rigorous regime has been introduced experimentally at New Hall senior detention centre at Wakefield and at Send junior detention centre at Woking.
The Government also propose to introduce legislation to remove some of the sentencing restrictions at the moment imposed on the courts. They intend to remove the restrictions imposed by section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, which limits the extent to which the courts can, if necessary, imprison offenders aged under 21.
The Government also hope to introduce the long-promised measures to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and to bring forward proposals


to introduce residential care orders for juveniles. They have already announced that, subject to the necessary consultations, they are ready to accept the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee that the maximum penalty for assault should be increased to six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £1,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath referred to the inadequacy of present penalties. The increase to which I have referred was first announced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby at the working conference about which we have spoken. Speeches that have been made recently on behalf of the Government to the effect that the courts might hesitate before imposing long custodial sentences for certain caegories of offence do not apply to offences of violence. The Government remain strongly of the view that custodial sentences are often the only appropriate penalty for the kind of violence that we are considering.
I hope that that is an adequate indication, on an occasion of this kind, of the Government's approach to this problem. I hope, too, that I have satisfied my hon. Friend that the Government regard this as a serious problem, to be tackled with urgency. I hope that he will forgive me for not being more specific about some of his suggestions. It is because the working conference took place only two weeks ago.
Plainly, we cannot promise that there will be any immediate or rapid reduction in the level of violence on public transport in London and elsewhere, but I am confident that the measures that we and the operators are taking—together with those that we hope will be introduced as soon as possible—will, with the cooperation of the transport user, help to reduce the unacceptable level of violence that is now occurring.

ELDERLY PERSONS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. William Hamilton: The basis of this debate is the report "Changing Patterns of Care ", which deals with the services provided for the elderly in Scotland. It has been produced by the programme planning group

of the Advisory Council on Social Work and the Scottish Health Service Planning Council.
I think that, at the outset, I should put on record the gratitude of the whole House to Mrs. Elizabeth MacDonald the chairman of the group, and to all the members of the group and its subgroups. As Mrs. MacDonald says in the preface, it is the most comprehensive report on the elderly to have been published in Scotland.
Having read the report, I think that it merits that description. It is a valuable reference document, though I must say that, priced at £4, it will hardly be a best seller among old people. The price of the report shows inflation in full spate, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office are not using the price in order to prevent wide distribution of the report. I also hope that the Scottish Office will make sure that the report is distributed in the proper quarters throughout Scotland and that it is widely debated.
Obviously, with an extremely wide remit, the group was not able to cover all aspects of the challenge. I regard the increasing numbers of old people as a challenge rather than as a problem. The group indicate the breadth of the problem in the nature of its recommendations.
Perhaps it would be worth while if I quoted some of the facts. There is an increasing number of people over 65 today and the number of people living beyond 85 is also growing. The figures produced in appendix 2 of the report are startling. About one person in seven in Scotland is over 65—which means a total of 705,100 people. In the 10 years 1976–86 the 75 to 84 age group will increase from 200.500 to 243,000—an increase of about 21 per cent. The number of people aged 85 and over will increase from 41,200 to 54,000 in the same decade. By 1991 there will be another steep rise, to over 74,000 people aged 85 and over. By 1991–11 years from now—over 310,000 of Scotland's population will be over 65 years of age.
These people have to be kept by the rest of the community. Their demands are for housing, hospital services and community-based local services, such as day centres, home helps, chiropody, lunch clubs, meals-on-wheels, laundry


and transport facilities. The report states:
 Growing old is part of normal human development … Every effort should be made to allow this process to take place in the home and family environment with whatever support might be needed from both statutory and voluntary services.
It is trite to say that the rest of the community must be prepared to foot the bills to meet the challenge by taxation, rates, voluntary effort and increasing the total national wealth. The Government's reply will stress the importance of increasing national wealth. I accept that that is important, but the Government must ensure that national wealth is more fairly distributed not only in incomes but in the form of the services to which the report refers.
More money in the pocket, and better housing, health services and transport are essential if the fear, boredom and immobility of ageing are to be reduced to tolerable levels. The problems cannot be solved by the laws of the market. The free play of market forces cannot meet the challenges posed by our old people.
Few old folk are able to buy their own houses. The Government make great play of selling council houses. That incites little response from old people. Few old people can buy private health services. The Government propose to introduce a Bill to extend private medicine. That will be irrelevant to most old folk. Government policy is that people should receive in accordance with their wealth.
For financial and physical reasons, few old people can use their own transport. The majority of our old people are in low-income groups and depend increasingly on the public services, which are paid for by the rest of us out of rates and taxes.
The most important recommendation in the report relates to housing. The report says that about 90,000 extra places in amenity and sheltered accommodation are needed in the next decade. The report makes a tentative estimate of the cost—about £1,000 million. The report reckons that about 1,000 additional hospital beds and places will cost another £30 million up to 1986. The provision of day hospitals will cost between £6 million and £10 million. They are tentative figures, but they are guidelines that indicate,

very broadly, the challenges in financial terms.
In a foreword to the report the Secretary of State for Scotland recognises the need for improvement in the services for the elderly. He indicates that the Government will publish a White Paper later this year, but there is a warning that the report will be pigeonholed to gather dust on the shelves of the Scottish Office.
I could write out the gist of the Minister's reply, because, in the foreword the Secretary of State said that all proposals would be considered in the light of the Government's plans for public expenditure, and in the light of the prospects for the economy. We hear that sort of reply all the time. The Minister's reply will be no exception. He could speak without a note, because he knows the answer by heart. Without a note, he will ostentatiously reel off the answer. I have heard it all so many times.
Put bluntly, the Secretary of State's foreword means that there will be at least three years—it may be a decade—of hard slog. That is official Government policy. The Prime Minister is always saying that. She blames everybody but herself. We shall have a decade of increasing misery and hardship for the elderly and the poor, with ever-increasing pressures on local authorities to reduce expenditure on the services to which I have referred. There will be a greater reduction in the quality of health services, in national insurance provisions and in housing. The sign of things to come was provided only this week in the debate on the Social Security Bills.
I wish to put on the record what will happen in housing in Scotland. The Housing Bill relates principally to England and Wales. According to the White Paper on public expenditure, the Government are planning to cut expenditure on Scottish housing by 42 per cent, in the next four years. The current level of spending is £702 million. Next year that will be reduced to £603 million, and in 1983–84 to £410 million. Of all the expenditure in Scotland within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that on housing is to be cut more savagely than any other, yet we all know that parts of Scotland are the most deprived in the whole of Western Europe. There are still acute housing shortages in


many parts of Scotland. The Minister knows that.
Paragraph 2.6 of the report states:
 The provision of a greatly increased supply of sheltered housing is one of the central recommendations of our Report. The scale of increase required will mean that a higher proportion of the financial allocation of local authorities will need to be devoted to this purpose … local authorities should be enabled to enlist the aid of the Scottish Special Housing Association.
They can also expect aid from other housing associations. But this SSHA cash is being drastically cut. Its capital allocation for 1980–81 is to be 20 per cent, less than the provisional allocation. The housing associations are also to be clobbered, so there is no hope of implementing or going any way towards implementing the recommendations of this group along those lines.
I am asserting now that there is absolutely no hope whatever of achieving within the next decade the housing targets set out in this report. That I regard as a great tragedy and, moreover, an unnecessary tragedy—a tragedy that need not happen. It is avoidable.
Some of the most exciting and humane projects in Fife, in my own area, are to be found in sheltered housing schemes—the Minister should visit them, if he has not done so already—in Glenrothes new town, in Lochore, in Keltie and in Cowdenbeath—all Labour-controlled authorities. That must be emphasised. It is principally in Labour-controlled areas that that kind of provision is to be found. I remember the miners' rows in those communities. Not one miners' row now exists in any of those communities. That is a great tribute to what Labour control can do locally and nationally.
These services are vital to the old. They are provided with companionship. They are provided with a degree of privacy. Not least, they are within a community of younger people. They are also provided with communal heating, which is very important. One of the most important facilities for old people is warmth, and they get this in the community housing schemes.
The report also asserts, in paragraph 1.4 on page 10, the need to ensure that our old folk
 should be able to count as of right on a pension at a level which means that they

do not have to claim supplementary payments for such necessities as heating, rent and clothing.
The question must immediately be put: how far have the Government gone towards satisfying those requirements? The answer is: not very far. The Government have made a change in the provision of pension increases. The previous Labour Government tied the pension to increased prices or increased earnings, whichever were the greater. One of the first things that the Tory Government did was to remove that obligation and tie the pension only to increased prices. Indeed, they have gone further than that, because the increase due to the old-age pensioners in early November this year is being deliberately delayed by the Government for a fortnight.
The junior Minister at the DHSS has said that this was deliberately done to rob the old people. She did not use the word "rob", but she said that it was to save £125 million of public expenditure. What was that but robbing the old people of two weeks' increase in their pension? The £10 Christmas bonus will be far less in sum than the £125 million that the Government are taking off the pensioners by retarding the increase in their pensions.
Incidentally, the Social Security (No. 2) Bill is the first Bill in this House for 50 years to be described officially by a Government as a Bill to abolish certain national insurance payments and to reduce others. That Bill provides for the freezing of the earnings rule for retirement pensioners at £52 a week, in order to save £16½ million. It phases out the earnings-related supplement, which has been paid for by national insurance contributions. That is the breaking of a contract between the Government and the contributor. That is being done to save £360 million. It provides for cuts in unemployment benefit and for occupational pensioners with pensions of over £35 a week. That is being done to save £25 million.
All that is in aid of what? Why cannot the plans in the report be fulfilled? The Government say that they cannot afford to do that. They say that we must all make sacrifices and that no Government Department can be excluded from the cuts. They argue that we must have cuts in education, health, housing, roads


and help for the unemployed, and that we must all do our bit.

That is not true. If a person earns over £20,000 a year——

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: He is all right.

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, that person is all right. Those earning over £20,000 a year have been laughing all the way to the bank, following the past wo Budgets. Those who are suffering are the sick, the unemployed and the aged. If someone is unemployed, sick or old, he has done badly out of the lady in No. 10. It will all get very much worse over the next few years. It will all be blamed on greedy trade unionists at home, on greedy Arabs abroad, and on the Russian menace. The scapegoats are ready for the mess into which the Government are rapidly plunging the country.
We hear the nonsense about all Government Departments having to cut their expenditure. Again, that is untrue. Two execptions are defence and the police. The Army generals, the Navy admirals and the police are happy with their lot.

Mr. John Home Robertson: And Royalty.

Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that my hon. Friend reminded me. They are part of the same bunch. They are all happy with their lot. However, nurses, teachers, steel workers, the old folk, one-parent families, the sick and the disabled are suffering.
As I said, £125 million is to be taken from the old folk in November. They are to be robbed of that sum. That £125 million will almost pay for an extra nuclear submarine, which is priced currently at £140 million. I am sure that old folk in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom will be very happy in the knowledge that they will sacrifice £125 million in November to buy a brand-new nuclear submarine for the lady in No. 10. The £1,000 million that could be spent on the sheltered housing for the old folk in Scotland that is mentioned in the report will, instead, be spent on guided missile destroyers at £85 million apiece, or will help to pay for a torpedo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) will be glad to know that we are building

a torpedo for the Navy. It is an underwater-borne torpedo that is designed to blow up somebody else's boat and the men in it. That is costing us £920 million. That is about the sum that would provide housing for the old folk in Scotland for the next decade.
The Government's priorities seem to be fewer houses and health services and more guns and bombs. So long as these priorities prevail there is little hope for the elderly on whose needs the report concentrates. The policies now being pursued by the Government and the priorities that they have determined are bitterly divisive as between the rich and the poor, and the privileged few and the hard-pressed millions of ordinary decent folk. Despite all that the Minister may say in the minutes that are left to him, we are still an extremely wealthy nation.
Yesterday, a question was asked about our revenue from North Sea oil. I should like to put the figures on the record. In 1976–77 the Government received £81 million in revenue from North Sea oil. By 1977–78 that revenue had increased to £238 million. By 1978–79 the Government were receiving £521 million in revenue, and by 1979–80, they were receiving £2,229 million. Independent estimates have been made to the effect that by 1984 the Government will be receiving £10,000 million per annum from North Sea oil. There is no reason why the report's recommendations should not be implemented with the aid of some of that revenue. We lack the will to distribute that wealth—with a sense of social justice and equity—either in the form of incomes or of services. The report shows what needs to be done for the elderly in respect of housing health and local authority services. There is no reason why this process should not be repeated, not only in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the Government lack the will to do that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). At one stage he indicated that the Government's response would be predictable. Those who have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech will not have thought that his contribution was particularly original.
He spoke for a long time, but very little of his speech had anything to do with the report. Most of it was a replay of the general election campaign. The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that his party lost that election.
I shall deal specifically with the points included in the report. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he commended the chairman and members of the party that produced the report. Due to the report's excellence and its many desirable recommendations, the Government have decided to publish it. In his foreword the Secretary of State points out that the Government recognised the need for many of the changes included in the report's recommendations. The hon. Gentleman correctly said that the report suggested that there would be an increase in the size of the elderly population. It is significant that although the total population over the age of 65 is unlikely to change dramatically over the next 10 years, the proportion of those who are 85 or over will probably increase substantially. Such people are more likely to be frail than those who are younger. Attention must therefore be given to the ways in which those in that age group can be dealt with properly.
I commend hon. Members to a point that is made on page 17 of the report. It states:
 It is important to remember too, that the great majority of this sector of the population over 65 (95 per cent.) have their needs met within their own homes and often by their families.
The report rightly seeks independence for the elderly. Fortunately, that independence is available to a substantial proportion of old folk. We must concentrate our resources on the minority of old folk who do not have that independence, but who could respond to the desirable context that independence provides if the facilities were available. The Government share the hon. Gentleman's view that, whenever possible, the elderly should be enabled to continue to live in their homes, or in homes that are adapted to their needs and requirements. That would be a more sensible use of resources and would accord more closely with what elderly people consider desirable.
The recommendations in the report to which the hon. Member referred go far

wider than he implied. He suggested that virtually all the recommendations involved the use of substantial sums of money. However, I am sure that he has read the report in detail and he must agree that a large proportion of the recommendations have nothing to do with resources, or affect resources in only a marginal way.
A significant number of the proposals are already being carried out. Some of the recommendations, such as the establishment of joint liaison committees, which exist in almost all regional health board areas in Scotland, have already been achieved. The training of nurses already pays special attention to the treatment of elderly patients, as recommended in the report. On mobility, a longer duration of pedestrian crossings is being considered, and research is being carried out into better travel information. The Government's Transport Bill will give greater scope and encouragement to voluntary transport. These are all matters which are the subject of recommendations in the report and which have already been achieved or are in the process of being achieved.
Equally, a significant number of recommendations have relatively little resource implications. These include the involvement of the elderly in taking decisions that affect them, the paying of greater attention to improving the design of facilities in accommodation for the elderly, the better use of existing resources, such as community centres, schools, day centres, and better planning and integration of services. A lot can be done with existing resources in a better and improved way. The report highlights a number of ways in which that can be achieved. I know that this will be warmly welcomed not only by local authorities but by a large number of the voluntary organisations that are involved with care for the elderly.
The position of the voluntary organisations is highlighted in the report, and it is worth quoting from page 21:
 Much more could be done in finding methods of collaboration with voluntary organisations and individual volunteers than has hitherto been the case.
The Government feel very strongly that that is a sensible recommendation that will be warmly welcomed.
The hon. Member indicated that some of the recommendations had substantial resource implications, not just for this Government. It would be equally so whichever Government were in power and whatever economic policy was being pursued. The hon. Member correctly pointed out that the recommendations for sheltered and amenity housing would amount to £1,000 million, which is not only far greater than the present Government's housing budget, but far vaster than the housing budget of any Government over the last few years. When he was castigating the Government for reducing the housing budget, he might have mentioned in passing that the reduction in the housing budget in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom has been going on for six years—not just for 12 months.
In 1974, 13,000 council houses were built in Scotland. In 1979, at the end of the Labour Government, 5,000 were built. Those are dramatic reductions in public sector house finance. It has been a matter of agreement between both parties that housing needs in Scotland are not the same as they were a few years ago, and it has been agreed that there should be an increasing concentration on such things as sheltered housing because that can more adequately respond to the needs of housing in Scotland.
The hon. Member mentioned the Scottish Special Housing Association. The allocation to the association is on a par with its actual expenditure last year. Also, we take account of specific proposals of the SSHA for sheltered accommodation in determining the local level of resources that can be made available. The hon. Gentleman wrongly suggested that we were reducing the money available to housing associations. He may have been looking at figures for other parts of the United Kingdom, but if he cared to contact the Federation of Housing Associations in Scotland before he made that claim he would have discovered that it was quite unfounded and that the level of resources to housing associations has been maintained at the level of previous years. The hon. Member could have checked that easily.
The hon. Gentleman could also have pointed out that the National Health Service, on which so many elderly people depend, is not subject to reductions as a result of Government policy. Indeed,

a 2 per cent, growth in real terms has been provided for in the public expenditure White Paper over the years to come. If the hon. Member reads the White Paper he will find that reference.
The hon. Gentleman will also find that in Scotland for the current year there is a real increase in the resources available for personal social services, and that will mean that some modest improvements can be made. I was interested to note that he made no reference to the recommendation for home helps in Scotland. Clearly, home helps are of great importance to elderly people. I suspect that the main reason why he did not mention them was that the greatest reduction in the number of home helps came after 1976, when a Labour Government made savage reductions in public spending. Of course, they now prefer to forget that that ever occurred.
Therefore, we are in a situation in which it is not a matter of dispute between the political parties—whatever the hon. Gentleman says—that resources should be concentrated on those, such as the elderly, who have special needs and who need special provision. But it is equally the case that all Governments—not only the present Government—must point out that it is only by the creation of increased national wealth that these facilities will ultimately be provided. The hon. Gentleman said that that remark was predictable from me. He knows that it would have been predictable whichever Minister from whichever party was standing at this Dispatch Box, because it is one of the facts of life. If the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that, he is doing a disservice to those who sent him to this place.
I simply say, in conclusion, that the Government welcome the vast majority of the recommendations in the report. There is likely to be a White Paper later this year on the Government's overall strategy for the elderly, and of course proposals in this document will form a valuable part of that strategy when it is declared.
Many of the recommendations in the report have been implemented—some can be implemented quite easily, even in the present economic climate—and as for those that require substantial resources, over a period, we, like the hon. Gentleman's


Govenment, will seek to implement them, consistent with the national economic interest. That is the Government's position.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Catch 22.

Mr. Rifkind: If it is Catch 22, it is a Catch 22 that has been shared by all Administrations over the years. It is only those who would seek to fly into the face of reality who would wish to deny that.
I thank the hon. Member for Fife, Central for raising the subject of this report. It was published only two weeks ago. It is right that it should have been discussed in the House, and it is right also that the Government's view and that of the hon. Gentlemen should be made known now.

MATERNITY FACILITIES (CAMBRIDGE)

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: One of the most interesting and important aspects of public life for someone who endeavours to be a conscientious constituency Member of Parliament is that he is constantly confronted by the totally unexpected. Cambridge has not only a world-famous university and industry. It also—this is not at all coincidental—has one of the finest hospitals in the country—Addenbrooke's. This hospital serves not only the city of Cambridge but a large area of East Anglia. New Addenbrooke's is a place of light, human warmth, great capacity and practical efficiency. No hospital service is without its problems, but Addenbrooke's is rightly regarded as a magnificent and vital asset not only to Cambridge and Cambridgeshire but to a wider area.
Shortly after my election to this House in December 1976, I visited Mill Road maternity hospital, in the middle of my constituency. The contrast with Addenbrooke's was total. I was shocked by the condition of the buildings, while at the same time I was deeply impressed and moved by the dedication and skill of everyone who worked there.
It is customary to pay tribute to the work of doctors and nurses. As my eldest daughter is a nurse, I am somewhat

heavily biased in favour of them. But no one whom I have ever met who has been a patient at Mill Road, or has had friends or relatives who have been patients, has anything but praise and gratitude for all its staff. Under physical conditions that were described in a report by a health district official to the area health authority in April 1977 as "disgraceful ", the staff daily achieve miracles of skill and devotion.
A senior consultant at Mill Road has recently written:
The building is an outdated, inefficient structure, incapable of further expansion to accommodate an ever-increasing number of patients, or housing equipment to implement new techniques. Accommodation for both patients and those working in the hospital is very sub-standard. A clinical medical school has recently been established in Cambridge, and the maternity hospital is the main obstetric centre. Despite this, there is not even one square inch in which to build a seminar room to teach students, let alone providing proper lecturing and library facilities.
There are occasions in this House when one wishes that one could inform hon. Members and Ministers by means of photographs or other visual methods. If I could do that, I am sure that they would be as astonished and dismayed as I was on the first of my visits to Mill Road maternity hospital. I shall have to confine myself to the stark facts.
The main building was built as a poor-house in 1838, shortly after the accession of Queen Victoria. During the last war, it was developed as a maternity hospital and in 1948 was named the Cambridge maternity hospital. Since then, it has developed into the main obstetric centre for the region and for the new clinical medical school.
In a well-argued special issue of the Cambridge Evening News, compiled by my constituent Mr. Fulton Gillespie, the overall situation is accurately described. Mill Road
 is short of beds, short of filing space for records, short of space for ante-natal clinics, short of examination rooms, short of residential accommodation for those midwives who stay … and short of storage space for anything from dirty laundry to urine bottles. In [his situation it handles twice the national average throughput of patients, yet, miraculously loses less babies than any other hospital in the country.
I disagree with only one point. It is not a miracle; it is the result of intense devotion,


skill and hard work under well-nigh impossible conditions.
It is important to emphasise that the demand on the hospital is steadily increasing. For example, delivery numbers of babies, which is obviously only one part of its work, which had been relatively stable for the past three years, are rising again. There were 3,903 in 1978 and 4,133 in 1979, of which 884 were from outside Cambridgeshire, emphasising the fact that I am not making just a constituency or even a Cambridgeshire point, but an East Anglia point.
The county of Cambridge has 18 per cent, more women of child-bearing age than in 1971. It is one of the most significantly expanding population areas in the country. Bitter complaints about the antediluvian conditions of the main building, which is surrounded by a dismal and ragged collection of huts, mainly of war-time vintage, one of which contains the operating theatre, have been incessant and are wholly justified. A study team on hospital services in Cambridge reported in 1975:
 These problems can only be satisfactorily solved by providing a new obstetic unit 
at New Addenbrooke's. Twenty years ago, the then matron of Mill Road told the board of governors that matters had reached a crisis point. That is even truer in 1980.
There is no disagreement on the facts. The buildings are dreadful, the facilities are inadequate, and the staff is magnificent, though sorely pressed. What is at issue are the priorities for the East Anglia region and the attitude of the regional health authority.
Since my election to the House three years ago, I have raised the question of Mill Road constantly at private meetings with members of the regional health authority and the area health authority and with former and present Ministers, hopeful that private persistence and the sheer force of the argument would get things moving. I am a great believer in private persuasion and argument. I am not interested in personal publicity or in making headline-catching speeches. Usually, I am successful for my constituents, through the process of private persuasion, but in this case I have been wholly unsuccessful, which is why I am

taking the time of the House to raise the matter publicly.
I am told by the regional health authority that 1998 is the earliest possible starting date. We have had so many postponements in the past that if we go on at the present rate, 1988 might be a more reasonable estimate. The consultants, nurses, midwives, staff, present and future patients are not prepared to wait patiently until a starting date of 1988, and neither am I.
I shall not weary the House with an account of the interminable and complex discussions, non-decisions and postponements that have dogged the matter for so long and totally exasperated everyone involved, including me. I blame no one in particular. What I say is that someone, or some authority, must get the hospital priorities of East Anglia right, and the dominant priority today is a new obstetrics unit at New Addenbrooke's.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health issued a consultation paper on hospital services, "The Future Pattern of Hospital Provision in England ". On page 1 he rightly says:
 There are … a number of arguments against building very large hospitals: their remoteness, complexity and impersonality, and the effect these have on the morale of staff.
I entirely agree. He adds:
 In the past Government has tended to prescribe a single basic pattern for the whole country. This is both unrealistic and undesirable. Different circumstances demand different solutions. So I have no intention of producing a blueprint to be applied everywhere.
With that second point I particularly agree.
I fully understand the difficulties that face a regional health authority in reviewing its capital programme without a clear notification of the capital resources that it can expect over the next few years. That brings me to my hon. Friend the Minister and his officials. When they consider the regional strategic plan and its funding programme I urge them to consider this project as an absolute priority for East Anglia.
The Mill Road hospital site has many advantages, being centrally located and more convenient for many of my constituents than New Addenbrooke's, but the conditions in the area are such that I see no realistic alternative to a new obstetric unit at New Addenbrooke's, with


the present site in Mill Road, which is very valuable, being made available for other purposes.
I fully accept that this is a difficult period for Ministers and the Health Service. There are many competing claims for public expenditure. However, what I am asking for is not more public expenditure but a shift in priorities for the East Anglian area—a shift that would be of long-term value to the area as a whole. I am not simply making a constituency point, although clearly a hospital that is situated in my constituency and that serves my constituency has a particular relevance to me. Through this hospital service we cover a wide area in East Anglia, as emphasised by some of the figures that I have given.
Throughout this protracted business I have had very warm, strong support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), whose child was born at Mill Road, and the Cambridge area health authority. I have also been supported particularly by my constituent, Mrs. Maskell, who, in her shop in Victoria Road, Cambridge, organised a public petition that was an immense encouragement to me in my campaign on the issue.
I feel that I am in good company and that I have a case. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond to the strong emotions in Cambridgeshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I should like to reply to the strong case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes lames). I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that I was born at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to speak about the future of the maternity hospital in Mill Road, Cambridge. As those who know him would expect, my hon. Friend made a forceful, well-informed, compassionate speech on behalf of the institution, those who work there and his constituents.
I assure my hon. Friend that the East Anglia regional health authority and the

Cambridgeshire area health authority, which are responsible for the provision of health services in Cambridge, are fully aware of the need for a new maternity hospital in Cambridge. I propose to draw my hon. Friend's forceful speech to the attention of both authorities. They share my hon. Friend's concern, which he expressed on behalf of his constituents when he wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health about the matter in January this year, and which he has enlarged upon today. No one can be in any doubt about the strong local feeling on the matter.
I am aware that parts of Mill Road maternity hospital were built as long ago as 1838 and that it started its life as a workhouse. I have equipped myself with photographs and cuttings from the local paper to get the full background. It was an institution for the poor, the aged and the homeless for almost 100 years, administered by the guardians of the poor of the Cambridge Union. It should perhaps come as no surprise that 142 years after it was built the people of Cambridge feel that it can no longer meet the demands being made on it. It was built for another purpose in another age, and there is genuine and wide concern locally about the pressure on the hospital and the serious shortcomings in the standard of accommodation available there.
As my hon. Friend indicated there is no room for expansion on the site and the shortage of space and facilities, the shortage of beds and of midwives, of examination rooms and residential accommodation, place tremendous pressures on the staff who work there. The staff are faced also with a constantly increasing number of births, and bed occupancy figures are well above the national average. Re-siting of the hospital was first agreed in 1961, but has been deferred on several occasions since then because of pressing demands on available resources.
My hon. Friend has already praised the effort of those staff who are called upon to work in such difficult conditions. I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without adding my own very full appreciation of their efforts. I cannot speak too highly of the results which they have achieved and are continuing to achieve. One measure of their performance can be seen from the fact that the hospital has


one of the highest rates of live births among the newborn in the country. This alone would be commendable even if only the normal obstetric cases were treated, but Mill Road maternity hospital is a centre of excellence to which general practitioners and local maternity hospitals also send their more difficult cases.
The tremendous sense of purpose and dedication shown by the staff has enabled them to overcome the difficult conditions in which they are required to work. Their commitment and skill is renowned locally and it is not difficult to understand why, despite the conditions at the hospital, prospective mothers choose to have their babies there. I am aware of the concern that the growing population and the increased demands on Mill Road are causing. The health authorities, too, are very aware of this and, as I have already indicated, are agreed that there is a need for the replacement of the hospital at the earliest opportunity.
The East Anglian regional health authority's current plans, as my hon. Friend mentioned, do not provide for a start on replacing Mill Road until 1988. However, the Cambridgeshire area health authority regards the relocation of the hospital to the New Addenbrooke's site as its top priority. I should perhaps explain that the responsibility for determining the priority to be given to any capital building scheme in the East Anglia region rests with the East Anglia regional health authority, although, of course, hospital provision in Cambridge would require detailed consultation with the Cambridgeshire area health authority. The area health authority has forcefully pressed the regional health authority for the immediate replacement of Mill Road, and I know that my hon. Friend shares its view that a serious review of the region's capital building priorities is now called for.
The inclusion of the Mill Road scheme in the capital programme will be considered in detail by the regional health authority as part of its strategic plan as soon as revised capital resource assumptions are known.
The regional health authority will be given details shortly of the capital resources that it can expect over the next few years. It will re-examine its priorities in the light of its revised financial expectations. I cannot anticipate what decisions

will be reached, as the regional health authority is best placed to ensure that its available resources are allocated equitably over the whole region. It is not our policy to intervene when decision on priorities can best be made at a local, albeit regional, level. It is basically the regional health authority's job to plan. We want it to try to get on with that job. The perennial problem is one of resources, of which there never seem to be enough.
As a Government, we are very conscious of the need for more resources in the NHS and are anxious to do more, but to do this we must first restore the prosperity of the country. We are committed to improving the national prosperity. As the economy improves, more resources can be devoted to the NHS. Some small growth in the volume of resources has been made available to health authorities in the current year and growth prospects beyond 1980–81 are a little more hopeful. Our aim is to build on this when our own policies come to fruition.
In a letter, my hon. Friend has expressed the view that a public appeal for funds should be launched in the city of Cambridge, and in Cambridgeshire as a whole, to help with the resiting of Mill Road. He has expressed his willingness to head such a campaign. I am grateful to him for this offer and have asked him to explore the idea initially with the health authorities. Such an appeal, if properly harnessed, meets the Government's wish to encourage local initiative and enterprise.
The health authorities have not been solely concerned with the question of the relocation of Mill Road. Whilst this will solve their long-term needs, in the shorter term, ways have to be found of relieving some of the heaviest strain on the existing services. For some time the health authorities have been examining ways of improving the situation and reducing the pressure on the staff. I understand, for example, that terminations of pregnancy will no longer be carried out at Mill Road. As a result of this a ward can now be re-commissioned for the use of obstetric patients as and when the necessary money becomes available. This will provide nine extra maternity beds, and I hope that the health authorities will soon be able to find the necessary resources.
The health authorities also feel that the recent closure of the much underused Grange maternity unit at Ely may provide a small measure of relief to Mill Road. Most mothers who would normally have had their babies in the Grange are now expected to use the nearby Royal Air Force hospital in Ely, and the small number of midwives who were formerly based at the Grange, have returned to community midwifery. This will improve the quality of care in the community, and it is thought that some mothers who may have intended having their babies in Mill Road will now choose to have them at home.
I have already mentioned the ever-increasing demands on Mill Road. One of the problems facing the hospital is the number of patients being referred from outside the health district, and even from outside the East Anglia region. These numbers are known to be increasing, such is the reputation of Mill Road as a centre of excellence. Discussions are taking place to consider whether such patients can be referred elsewhere, where alternative facilities exist and are less stretched. Many patients, however, go to Mill Road because of their special needs and the hospital's particular expertise, and patients' interests will need to be protected in any arrangements which may be agreed.
A greater measure of relief to the staff at Mill Road, and to the population of Cambridgeshire generally, should result from the development of the Hinching-brook hospital at Huntingdon. Proposals for this hospital include the provision of a 40-bed consultant obstetric unit, which the regional health authority hopes will come into use in 1982. Patients from the Huntingdon area who would at present look to Mill Road for their maternity services would then be able to have their babies locally. This will further reduce the pressure on the overstretched facilities at Mill Road. I hope that my hon. Friend is somewhat reassured by my comments. I repeat that I am grateful to him for having raised this matter today, giving me an opportunity to acknowedge the splendid work done at Mill Road maternity hospital.

Mr. Rhodes James: By leave of the House, perhaps I may speak briefly

again. I am most grateful to the Minister for what he said, but I hope that when he says that he hopes that the capital resources will be made available shortly, he really means shortly. I emphasise that although I stand ready and willing to launch a public appeal I am not prepared to do so until the RHA is prepared to amend the starting date. The date of 1988 is far too distant.
However, I am most grateful for the care and thought that my hon. Friend has given to this matter and for the evident sympathy and knowledge that he has in terms of the problems that we face, not only in Cambridge but in East Anglia as a whole.

SCHOOL MEALS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. John Home Robertson: There is a cruel irony in the fact that the Under-Secretary and I should be the last Members in the Chamber before the Whitsun Recess. Just over a year ago we were campaigning for a "Yes" vote in the referendum, which would have ensured that this kind of business would be dealt with in Edinburgh, which would have saved us an awful lot of trouble.
The Education Act 1980, in my opinion and that of many other people, is one of the nastiest pieces of legislation so far enacted by a particulary bitchy Government. I refer in particular to section 23, which does two things. First, it removes the obligation on education authorities to provide milk and meals in schools except for children of families receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement. Secondly, it empowers councils to make such charges as they think fit for whatever food they provide in schools. The minimum charge, by a separate direction from the Government, must now be 35p per meal, whatever the standard of the meal.
That section of the Act is, superficially, fair enough. It states that councils may still provide proper cheap meals for children in schools in Scotland. It implies that they can still provide proper cheap meals in schools. But the Government have also imposed a "catch 22" constraint by assessing the cost of the subsidy on school milk and meals.


The figure, according to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, has been assessed as about £18·2 million for the whole of Scotland.
The Government have gone on to deduct that sum of money from the rate support grant that they give to education authorities in Scotland. In other words, in Strathclyde £9 million has been deducted from its education budget, in the Lothian region the figure is £2·8 million, and £500,000 has been deducted from the rate support grant for the Borders region. Those are deductions from the grants paid by the Government to help defray the cost of providing education and, in particular, school meals.
At this stage I should perhaps mention that at the same time another £5·8 million has been filched from local education authorities by the Secretary of State. That was done in anticipation of school bus fares being imposed. As the House knows, Parliament did not permit the Government to allow education authorities to charge school bus fares, yet the £5·8 million is still missing. The Government took that money away in anticipation of charges being imposed and we do not know what has happened to it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us today.
I think that the Minister owes it to the House, to Scottish education authorities and to the people of Scotland to pay that money back, so that authorities can continue to provide some kind of proper service. Perhaps the money has already gone as part of the 23p in the pound tax handout to the very rich of the nation.
To sum up the effect of the cuts in rate support grant on school meals, I think that it is fair to say that the Government have cooked the books in order to prevent local education authorities from cooking proper school meals for their children. It is interesting to read the Official Report of the debates in Standing Committee on the Education (No. 2) Bill. The Government were given fair warning of the likely effects of what they were doing. They were given fair warning by the Educational Institute of Scotland, by the National Union of Public Employees, and even by the National Farmers Union in Scotland that what they proposed to do would have a serious detrimental effect on the provision of school meals.
The Government were given an excellent warning by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), who said in Committee:
 The school meals service as we have known it not only since 1944, when the obligation was laid on local authorities in Scotland, but much further back will become a thing of the past. The groups of dedicated people who service school meals in the kitchens and dining rooms and are so much a part of education will disappear from the education scene.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would have none of that. He said:
 I did not realise that there was anything in the Bill saying that the education service in the schools should dispense with a catering service.
He further said:
 I do not believe for a minute that the passing of the Bill will cause malnutrition to stalk the land of Scotland.
The Under-Secretary of State was in an incredulous mood that day, because he continued:
 I do not believe that the Bill will cause hardship. Nor do I accept the idea that there will be starvation and lack of nutrition because people cannot pay in a country where, for generations now, both parties have made sure that those in real need do not suffer.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science was more forthcoming. He said:
 There is a risk that a small number of children may be less well nourished as a result ".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D. 30 January 1980; c. 1749–1833.]
It being half-past Two o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Home Robertson: Our procedures confuse me, but I am relieved that I still have the Floor.
When those debates were taking place only four months ago, none of us realised that by now there would be a mass desertion from school dining halls and a threatened collapse of an entire catering service, which provides school meals and meals-on-wheels in one region in Scotland. I refer to the Borders region.
The Government gave education authorities a type of freedom. They gave the freedom to clobber either the children or the ratepayers. Councils have


—certainly the Labour councils in Scotland—have chosen to protect the children taken different actions. Most councils and have refused to cut the standards of school meals. They can do that only by raising more money from the rates. The Lothian region imposed a 42 per cent, increase on ratepayers. It serves the Under-Secretary of State right that he is a ratepayer in that region, because he and his colleagues are directly responsible.
Other authorities have sought to find other ways round the problem. Instead of cutting the standard of meals they have increased the charge. Tayside charges 40p and Grampian 45p. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is so concerned about the decrease in uptake of school meals in Tayside that he has asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to refer the problems to the sub-committee on nutritional surveillance of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. I understand that the sub-committee will examine the issue. I shall be interested in its conclusions.
If the Conservative Party on the Lothian regional council had had its way they would have made a 50p a meal charge for children in school. That would have cost £2·50 a week for each child and caused considerable hardship to families.
I return to the question of the poor old Borders regional council. It labours under a number of handicaps. It is the smallest mainland region in Scotland and therefore has to struggle under a heavy burden when supporting two tiers of local government. Another difficult burden is that Conservatives control both tiers. The Borders region has imposed a rate increase similar to that imposed by the Lothian region. It charges 35p—the statutory minimum—not for meals but for snacks. It has taken "advantage" of the section 23 provisions.
The authority has withdrawn free school meals for all except families in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. That means that the poverty trap is working with a vengeance in the region. Many widows, single parent families and genuinely poor people have to pay up to £2 a week so that their children can receive light snacks at lunch time.
The number of free meals provided in the region has been halved since the Act was implemented. The first that I heard of the cut in standards was when I received a letter on 18 April from a constituent—a lady who lives in a farm cottage near the village of Swinton in Berwickshire. She said:
 I feel, along with other mothers in the village and surrounding areas, that a bowl of soup and a scone is insufficient for growing children in the middle of the day especially as they no longer get milk. Because of the number of children picked up at farms etc. each day most of the children have a 7½ to 8 hour day away from home.
The House will understand that neither parents nor children consider it worth while to pay 35p for a snack that leaves growing children hungry. Large numbers of children and buying chips, or taking sandwiches to school, instead of taking advantage of the school meals service. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who lives in the region, told me that some of his children take sandwiches to school. It is not surprising that there has been a dramatic reduction in the uptake of school meals, which is leading to the collapse of the service.
At Hawick high school 700 meals a day used to be served, but now only 300 are being served. As a result, there are redundancies in the schools meals service and the introduction of short-time working in the catering service. Out of a total staff of 203 in the Borders region, only 23 have not been affected, because 150 have been put on short-time working and 30 are being made redundant—and that is only in the primary school sector.
It would be interesting to consider the reasons for the redundancies given by the Borders regional council to the National Union of Public Employees. The first reason is the restriction in local government finance—for which the Government are responsible. Secondly, there are the effects of the amended statutory requirements of the Education Act 1980 for school meals. Again, the Government are responsible. Thirdly, there is the council's policy decision to provide a one-course meal at 35p rather than a two-course meal at 50. As I have said already, the council was left with little choice but to do one or other of those. Fourthly, there is a decrease in the uptake of meals. A spectacular decrease is


hardly surprising given all the circumstances.
I contend that the Government are directly responsible for the loss of jobs and for the hardship that will be created, not only for those who will be made redundant but for the children who no longer receive proper meals in the middle of the day. By the winter, the service in the Borders region could become unworkable, because of the slimming down of the service and the demoralisation of those who work in the service, caused by the redundancies. It will no longer be possible even to provide a skeleton meals service in schools, although it is a statutory obligation in the region's 100 schools. If that service collapses, many of the elderly who rely on meals-on-wheels will also face difficulty, because they are provided from the same school kitchens.
I think that I have shown clear evidence that the full implementation of the so-called freedom provided by section 23 of the Education Act 1980 is already wrecking school catering services in one part of Scotland. I appeal to the Minister, when he replies, to give an undertaking that the Government will at least study the effects of the implementation of the legislation.
Secondly, if the Government discover, while studying the effects of that legislation—as I believe they must—that it poses a serious threat to the standard of nutrition and health of schoolchildren, will the Government be prepared to give back some of the money that they have taken away from local authorities through the rate support grant mechanism, in order to enable them to provide this essential service to a proper standard?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has shown his sincere interest in the subject by being prepared to raise it as the last matter that the House will consider before rising for the Whitsun Recess.
I begin by dealing with the point that he raised in the earlier part of his speech, when he asked whether the Government would compensate, as he put it, local authorities as a result of the decision not to impose charges for school transport.
I think he will be aware that in Scotland not one local authority budgeted to receive any revenue from school transport, as it was to be a matter entirely within the authorities' discretion. As the authorities have not, therefore, lost any revenue, it would be somewhat unusual for the Government to feel obliged to compensate them for that.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister telling the House that no deduction was made in the rate support grant in respect of this right, which the Government thought they would be able to deliver to local authorities to charge for school buses?

Mr. Rifkind: I am saying that local authorities were originally to have the discretion to decide for themselves whether to raise revenue from rural school transport. Local authorities in Scotland had already budgeted not to receive any, and in those circumstances it is not possible for them to argue that they are entitled to compensation for revenue that they had not intended to raise.
I now turn to the specific subject of the debate—the school meals position as the result of the Education Act 1980. I have to emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the position in the Borders region—or, indeed, in any regional authority in Scotland—is entirely at the discretion of the regional authority. No instructions or directions have been given by the Government to local authorities. The whole point of the provision to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been to remove controls imposed by the Government and to leave it to the local authorities to determine what is the most appropriate for their own local position.
There is a strong argument that that should have been done many years ago, because there is something anomalous in the fact that local authorities, with complete freeedom to make any increases or reductions in the standard of education or quality of education in their area, nevertheless had no discretion whatever either as to the kinds of meals they should provide or as to the price of the meals, or which categories of person should get them free and which should pay. Each of these factors was controlled by the Government, and this created some extremely foolish anomalies.
It meant, for example, that if, under any Government—it happened under the previous Government as well-it was necessary to make reductions in spending, an education authority had no choice but to make reductions in the quality of the education that it provided, or in teaching, staffing, and so on, and could not find any contribution from a matter such as school meals, which, however desirable or preferable, is peripheral to the basic question of education, which is the primary responsibility of the education authority.
I should like at this stage to correct one point that the hon. Gentleman made. The Government have imposed no statutory minimum charge for school meals. Local authorities have complete discretion over the level of charge that they wish to make.
The hon. Gentleman made some rather scaremongering remarks about the effects, as he sees them, of the provisions since they came into force. The response of the local authorities to the Government since the passing of the legislation suggests that they are by no means unhappy about having discretion of this kind. The only part of Scotland in which there were any complaints to the Scottish Education Department from local authorities was Tayside region, and that was on a point of detail rather than overall substance.
In those local authorities that have introduced cafeteria facilities instead of a full, rigid school meals service, the response of the consumers, the youngsters themselves, has been to welcome them warmly. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement on that point. Wherever that has been done, it has been found to be far preferable to the old school meals system, which youngsters often did not want and did not use. The response to the Scottish Education Department on the subject of cafeteria services has been described—I use the phrase given to the Scottish Office—as "very popular ". They have been warmly welcomed, and that applies to virtually every part of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman might have said that himself. He appears to indicate that he agrees with it. It is a justifiable argument that the provision being offered to youngsters in many schools is now more in tune with what they actually want than was formerly the case.
When the free school meal provision was first introduced many years ago I am prepared to accept that there was justification for it. At that time there was a high proportion of deprivation in our community. There was rationing throughout the country. Therefore, a universal school meal service made a great deal of sense. We are now living in a different climate. Fortunately, deprivation is only a minority problem. I accept that where it exists it is a serious matter. For that reason all children from families that are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement continue to receive free school meals. There is no question of any change in that policy. Local authorities have complete discretion to give free meals to additional categories of child where they think it appropriate, even if the families of such children are not in receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefit.
The hon. Gentleman referred to malnutrition. Instead of making accusations he should produce evidence. If he believes that malnutrition is being seen to be the result of the proposals and policies that we are discussing, he should produce the evidence. I think that he must concede that not one iota of evidence is yet forthcoming to suggest that anyone is suffering from malnutrition as a result of the changes. Wild accusations of that sort were made by the hon. Gentleman and by some of his hon. Friends during the passage of the Bill. The evidence so far suggests that they were totally groundless. We shall continue to monitor the changes to see whether any such evidence emerges. At this stage there is no such evidence. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, he is obliged to produce some hard factual statistics to support his contention.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the claims that were made during the passage of the Bill that as a result of the discretion that would be given to local authorities on charges, school meals would cost 60p or 70p per meal in many parts of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Such was the claim. We know that no local authority in Scotland is charging more than 42p and that the majority continue to charge 35p. Even on that basis the claims made by the


hon. Gentleman and by some of his hon. Friends were completely groundless.
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the level of costs for school meals it is relevant to remind him that the highest-ever increase in Scotland of which I am aware was the increase in 1977 under the previous Labour Government, when school meal prices were increased by 67 per cent. There is an element of humbug when he and his hon. Friends seek to suggest that they are the guardians of the smallest price possible for school meals. They do not behave like that in practice.
Much of the hon. Gentleman's argument rested on the level of uptake of school meals since the passing of the Bill. When the Bill was enacted, fewer than 50 per cent, of children in Scotland took school meals. That indicated that there was something not entirely satisfactory with the service being provided. Even at that time it did not appeal to half the school children in Scotland. That applies to the school population elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman made selective use of quotations to support his argument about the effect of the changes in certain schools in the Borders region. It is right that in some schools in some areas there has been a significant fall in the level of take-up. That applies especially to primary schools that have not yet introduced the cafeteria service. That is of great significance. Although the main fall so far has been at primary level, these are the schools which for the most part have not yet given die option of a cafeteria service to youngsters. If one compares the figures with those for secondary schools——

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is possible to provide a cafeteria service in small rural primary schools where there may be a roll of only 15 or 20? He is accusing my hon. Friends and me of humbug. It seems that the real humbug is the illusory discretion to which he keeps referring. He suggests that local authorities have discretion. The Government have taken the money away from them, which has removed their discretion.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman cannot conceal the fact that it is entirely within the power of the regional council

to provide such meals, snacks and cafeteria facilities that it thinks appropriate to the size of school. It may be that certain schools will not be able to make such provision. I am saying that where-ever a full meal has been replaced by a cafeteria service the numbers have not dramatically changed.
For example, at secondary level in the Borders region, the number of school meals has virtually remained unchanged for the past 12 months. Twelve months ago the number was 1,895. The latest figure is 1,775. In some schools the figure has risen. In Kelso high school the number of school meals increased from 246 to 300. In Peebles high school the number has increased from 192 to 350.
The hon. Gentleman was very selective in his quotations. I am giving an overall picture to balance those quotations. Those schools that have replaced the old meal system, which many youngsters did not want, with a cafeteria service—which they want and which their parents are happy for them to use—have witnessed an increase in the meal uptake. Several schools, including those outside the Borders region, have seen an increase in the number of meals taken, particularly where cafeteria services have been provided. Those schools are at last providing what the consumer wants, not what they think he should have. We are satisfied with that approach.
The hon. Gentleman referred to redundancies. It is always a matter of great concern if a person loses his employment as a result of a policy change. Employment in the school meals service is largely part time. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had no figures for the secondary schools in the Borders region. I am informed that the regional council believes it is unlikely that there will be redundancies at the secondary level. Redundancies will mainly affect primary schools. However, it is important to remember that the school catering system—like that of the House of Commons—is inevitably highly uneconomic. The service is required for one hour a day, and for 200 days of the year. If there are changes in the level of provision, or if different types of meal are provided, some reduction in the number of personnel will be inevitable. I understand that discussions are continuing with the trade unions involved on the details of


this issue. I hope that any problems will be resolved.
For the most part, substantial redundancies are not expected. The vast majority of reductions in the numbers of staff will be met by natural wastage. In that way, much of the problem will be resolved.

Mr. Home Robertson: Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will consider the point that I made about the poverty trap. In the Borders region the number of free school meals has been almost halved. Is he not worried that a large number of poor families—including the children of widows, of single parents and those families that are just above the poverty line—do not quite qualify for family income supplement or supplementary benefit? Such people now have to pay a charge for the meals that they previously received freely. Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about that?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that local authorities respond in different ways. Central Government impose no obligation on them. The hon. Gentleman is laughing. However, if there were an obligation on local authorities, they would have to behave in the same way. The wide variation in the school meals service emphasises the fact that the hon. Gentleman should raise this question with his local education authority. This is not a party political issue. Authorities of different political complexions provide for certain groups of children whose parents are not on supplementary benefit or family income supplement. However, the Government have not given any direction to local authorities on that issue.
If the hon. Gentleman feels that the decision taken by his local authority is inappropriate he should address his remarks to that authority. However, the decision is theirs.

Mr. Home Robertson: Too right.

Mr. Rifkind: Similar expenditure reductions have been imposed on all local authorities in Scotland. Authorities have reacted in different ways, because they have assessed their priorities differently. That is only right. This policy has not had the alarmist results that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends predicted. There has not been a significant increase in the cost of school meals. Indeed, there has not been any increase comparable to that imposed three years ago by the Labour Administration.
There is no evidence of malnutrition. The response of the youngsters themselves has been overwhelmingly in favour of the greater variety that is offered to them—particularly the cafeteria service, rather than the sit-down, predetermined meal that was imposed upon them. In some schools there has been a reduction in the take-up, in others there has been an increase, depending largely on local factors.
If the hon. Member is fair about this matter he will appreciate that at this stage he is not entitled to make the wide-ranging criticisms and condemnations that were implicit in his speech. His conclusion on the matter should be that the consumer interest—that of the youngsters themselves—has been well served by the changes, and the local authorities, for the most part, now not only appreciate but respond to what the parents and children want. As a consequence, the school meals service has improved rather than deteriorated because of the variety that is now available.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Three o'clock till Monday 2 June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 14 May.